Linux.com

So.... McBride can't do simple arithmatic.

Is anyone surprised?

#

Making fun of the mentally disabled! Shame on you! Don't you know that's politically incorrect?

#

As someone that works with the developmentally disabled I take offense to you comparing scum like mcFly to my clients

macewan

#

and you can't spell "arithmetic"... hehe =P

#

You have misspelled arithmetic

#

At least we know how a company that only makes millions is suing for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "ONE BILLION DOLLARS! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA! OK fine. 3 billion."

#

I'd ask him where he gets his stash, apparently it is some strong stuff.

#

Who's the most hated man? Osama Bin Laden or Darl McBride? To me it's Darl. Why? Well, Osama keeps wisely his mouth shut, so he doesn't bother me every day.

#

Darl doesn't have people launching cruise missiles at him, either. Hmm, anyone know what OS a cruise missile runs.

#

IBM and Red Hat have brought lawsuits against SCO, but I think its time that someone sued McBride himself. Charges might include fraud, disparagement, slander, etc.

Slander applies if the speaker has shown a blatant disregard for truth. I think that could easily be shown in McBride's case.

The victims of the slander are any of the contributors of the code that McBride claims is stolen.

#

RICO?

#

I believe that someone should file formal Federal Criminal Charges for illegally influencing the stock market with fabrications. All that selling of SCO stock was not a phenomenon of the RATS jumping ship. It was a case of the rats profiting from market manipulation. I believe it was planed that way.

#

I would agree with that.

I don't think he cares about Microsoft, Unix, Linux or any of that. He's just looking for a way to make a buck and he probably doesn't care how he does it.

#

That's the whole point of all this. If it were anything other than a money grab, SCO would take ESR up on his offer. The fact that they haven't, and that they now prevaricate when faced with a genuine, flame-free offer of co-operation, is all the proof a court would need, but I'm not a lawyer (is that what IANAL means, btw?)

#

> I'm not a lawyer (is that what IANAL means, btw?)

Yep. Here's a reasonable list of Internet chat acronyms:

http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/

I'm sure there are better lists around if you want to go searching. This one is funny because of its political correctness (note the problem they have with the letter "F"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).

#

Actually, I have filed a formal complaint via the SEC website. You can do the same.

#

I am not kidding when I state that McBride should be consulting psychiatrists rather than lawyers... He has lost it and his VP also. Either they are getting paid to do this by our favorite convicted criminal monopolist, or they have gone totally bonkers.

#

Maybe we should help him... Free of charge...

#

He'd just try to charge you for doing something for free that he can use.

#

> Maybe we should help him... Free of charge...

Just be careful what you say. He might claim that your "free advice" was actually his own idea first, and then try to charge you $1,400 for giving it to anyone else.

#

psychologist thinks these corporate thieves should be given a reward matched to their behavior: perhaps in Rahway, Joliet, or possibly Folsom prison (she and I have been married 13 years, so she's probably a bit biased). After that, they should be allowed to repay society for room and board, and finally, be permitted the opportunity to work for a living.

She wouldn't mind a plea bargain: Reduction of lockup time in exchange for evidence that results in the conviction of whoever is really behind this travesty. It sure looks like a "team effort" to me.

#

Ooo, you must really not like him to give such harsh punishment as seing psychs!

The only ones I'd wish into the hands of psychs are other psychs (as is standard practice btw).

#

like a fox.

I do not approve or like what he is doing, but I do admire his ability to milk the company for every last cent. This was never about winning a case. Everybody saw that code. Anybody can see that there is no possible way to win this. It was always about fraud. They are simply manipulating the stock market.


  McBride/Noorda et.al. will pay a portion of this to W./Ashcroft and they will be gaurenteed that no charges will come against them (assuming that W. wins). Smart, very smart.

#

McBride/Noorda et.al. will pay a portion of this to W./Ashcroft and they will be gaurenteed that no charges will come against them (assuming that W. wins). Smart, very smart.

You do know that the very son of Orin Hatch is on their legal team, right? They're connected, but politicians are afraid of the kind of backlash this is generating.

I've personally sent emails to W, Ashcroft, Hatch and the Republican Party complaining about the Justice Dept's lack of action regarding SCO's nonsense.

#

Maybe, in exchange for generating smoke, Darl gets kickbacks from stock sales as <A HREF="http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000090201203000041/0000902012-03-000041-index.htm" TITLE="sec.gov">everyone</a sec.gov> at our favorite convicted monopolist bails.

Or, more sinister, the decision about rejecting/accepting software patents in the EU is coming up, maybe it's to draw work and attention away from that.

#

Has anybody ever thought that this could all just be one big publicity stunt to get Darl McBride to stardom as a comedian, or one of those whacko's who does weird things?

#

Do you mean politicians?

#

Maybe he went to the same Comedy School as the former Iraqi Information Minister? Could there be a connection here??

#

A story at LWN.net this morning supports Linus's statement. It reveals that the code SCO showed at the conference yesterday as proof of its claims came from a 1980's version of Unix which has been licensed under a BSD-style open source license.

I suppose that SCO has made the code licensed under the BSD-style license proprietary now? Perhaps that's why SCO wants to do away with GPL, and probably any other license that doesn't fit with its desires.

#

It reveals that the code SCO showed at the conference yesterday as proof of its claims came from a 1980's version of Unix which has been licensed under a BSD-style open source license.

But since the terms of that license have clearly been violated, The SCO Group really does have a case. Read the license and look at <A HREF="http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/patch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io_ate_utils.c.html" TITLE="funet.fi">the patch</a funet.fi> that contains plagerized code and you will see that the terms of the license were ignored and violated.

#

Just not the one they're trying to pull.

#

And, SCO, the self-styled great protector of intellectual property rights, is ignoring the GPL licence placed on code which it has not written and does not own. I sense a lot of self-serving hypocrisy here.

#

Now they just have to prove how the failure of SGI to include the required copyright notice cost SCO $3 billion. Only then could they hope to recover that sum...from SGI, not IBM.

And until they can do that, the best they can hope for is for a court to require that the violation be corrected. But since that piece of code has since been removed from Linux, that's not really a hardship.

#

McBride of Frankenstein and Company have disregarded the cardinal rule of lying: Keep It Simple, Stupid. The more complex the lie, the more likely that it will trip you up.

The only thing that I can figure is that they have been paid $300M by Microsoft to keep up this Linux flap, and whatever nonsense that they spout in public must not be admissable in the IBM contract case. Otherwise, I don't see how they expect to avoid hard-time for fraud...

#

Before Linux crumbles into dust. It will be sweet to see it go since it's such an awful excuse for a kernel.

BTW the notion that 7th Edition UNIX is public domain is false. There are no license stipulations on true public domain code. There are license stipulations on 7th Edition UNIX and one of them is that code derived from 7th Edition must state that it was.

<A HREF="http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/patch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io_ate_utils.c.html" TITLE="funet.fi">this patch</a funet.fi> does not attribute anything to the original authors. Plagerism is just normal for Linux.

#

It clearly states that the code belongs to SGI. Beyond that, it's SGI's responsibilty to keep track of who wrote it.

#

You and darl are idiots

240 West Center Street
Orem, Utah 84057
801-765-4999 Fax 801-765-4481
January 23, 2002

Dear UNIX enthusiasts,

Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera
International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX
System V and successor operating systems:
32-bit 32V UNIX 16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source code is available from Caldera International, Inc.
The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.
Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.
Neither the name of Caldera International, Inc. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Very truly yours,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/signed/ Bill Broderick
Bill Broderick
Director, Licensing Services
* UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other countries.

#

Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source code is available from Caldera International, Inc.
The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.
Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice

This is what <A HREF="http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/patch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io_ate_utils.c.html" TITLE="funet.fi">the patch here</a funet.fi> fails to do. It fails to include those notices despite being based on UNIX code therefor it violates the license agreement. Why are you so thick-headed that you can't see this simple truth? Linux is just a bunch of rubbish.

#

Again, thick headed one, read. SGI (a commercial company) was the one who didn't put in the proper copyright notice. Now that we know SGI screwed up, we can fix it and put in the notice. This isn't a linux issue, it's a SGI issue. Go get a clue, narrow one.

#

Being really polite here, I would strongly suggest doing a bit more research on this issue. Seriously. Research it from all sides and angles. Then come back with a whole bunch of stuff that you can use to prove your point - or just accept that you're over-reacting and leave it at that.

#

...with such an obvious troll? He's either:

- A SCO/M$ shill (most probably)
or
- A *BSD fanatic (who, if so, could do with some lessons in tolerance)

#

Maybe I'm thick-headed, but please explain why a patch contributed by some commercial company (SGI in this case, it states so very clearly), if it actually violates any agreement, should make Linux a pile of rubbish.

Anyway, that piece of code has been released twice under BSD, published in a wealth of books (including one by the very authors of the code, since it appears in Kernighan & Ritchie's "The C Programming Language"). It is also copyrighted by the University of California, under BSD terms. Now, tell me, how is it possible that both Caldera and the University of California have copyrights on the same piece of code?

AT&T tried once to sue UC regarding a similar circumstance, code that was released under BSD terms (and copyrighted by UC). AT&T lost the case, and even paid UC's court costs. The reason? AT&T was found to have copied more code from BSD into its Unix that what BSD ever copied from it.

And it can be no other way. Open Source is free for everyone, even for companies such as SCO. They can hack whatever they please, and surely they have copied many things from public domain and added them to their proprietary code, and no one will ever know, because their source code is proprietary, and is never released.

I mean, they are claiming rights on stuff that their own version of Unix does not implement, or implements very poorly when compared to Linux... how can anybody believe for one second anything they claim?

Secondly, Mr. McBride is claiming that over 800,000 lines of code infringing SCO's IP have been introduced in the Linux 2.4 kernel. This is downright preposterous, and the only example he can produce is a piece of code written in 1973, that has two different copyright owners, and is distributed under three different licenses?

You could believe Linux is rubbish, thats your right of course, but IMO, SCO is downright scum. I mean, they are releasing their new OpenServer, which uses loads of GPLed code such as Samba, Apache and whatnot, while at the same time attacking the very heart of GPL. My opinion? The GPL community should deny SCO the right of using any kind of GPLed code, be it from Linux or any other type. If you don't like GPL, well, don't use it.

Now, get your facts straight and examine the proof before whoring and trolling around on behalf of SCO.

#

Thanks for setting him straight.
I really hate to have to feed the trolls anyway.
He is probably one of billgs boyz.
Most everyone knows by now this fiasco is really about manipulation of scox stock and McScum and co makeing a mint. They followed the rules and made all the filings with the Trade Commision etc. about dumping 5000 shares a month. They makwe these wild claims right before thier stock gets dumped.
The people who buy the stock and the employees will be the true victoms in all of this. Linux's reputation will recover as quickly as M$ did from thier monoply suite.
Since IBM and RedHat have called thier hand maybe it will get done sooner than later.

                                    Take Care

                                                        Ron W

#

If they are following the strict letter of the rules, then that is good news. That means that they are keeping this going just to pump their stock, and that allows the open-source community to infer when it will be over. When they have no more stock, they will allow this whole thing to die.

The obvious $300M payoff by Microsoft to attack Linux is the 30 pieces of silver that they have received (no, I'm not equated Linux with the Messiah, but it's just too good to resist). However, when other financial incentives are gone, they will walk away from it. So, as the thread subject says, "It's just a matter of time."

#

So what you are saying is that SCO has the right to do all this because SGI forgot to put the copyright notice in the code. (If that is true or not that is something that we have to hear from SGI on).

That is pretty cold coming from a company that is making money from the likes of SAMBA and APACHE etc.etc.

#

Only if Linux is er, SGI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or something.

#

Troll. And not even a good one. Beats me why I'm bothering to respond...

#

Is this all that you do? I've noticed you trolling in a few posts today, well, it may have been you and somebody else, but the posts match up in trollspiel so well.

It appears that you're desperately trying to convince people that Linux coders are well-known for copying code from other people. Either that or you're trying to stir up a bad atmosphere, hoping that other anti-Linux/Open Source people will join your trollish behavior.

Are you from SCO? Microsoft? Do you get money or favors from either?

Are you just so pro-BSD that you've taken on a 'righteous' crusade to revile anything that stands in the way of your preferred operating system?

If 'plagerism' is normal for Linux, can you at least give some examples to prove your point... or would that require a non-disclosure agreement which only allowed us to see pathetic specimens of code which don't prove anything?

#

'Scuse me, dipstick, but the linked source code DOES attribute SGI. While I do not want to cause any grief to a company which has certainly befriended Linux, your brief is not with Linux, it is with SGI.

It would surprise me a great deal if SGI did not have its bases fully covered before releasing any code to the GPL.

Do not worry your pretty little head about Linux crumbling into dust. I doubt of any of us will live long enough to see that. It, and its future derivatives, are the future of computing. The future started about 10 years ago. Try to keep up.

#

Looks like you have invested in some SCO stock. Wise up, little guy...

BTW, that code is not 7th edition, it is from v3. Yes, written in 1973... those comments come from the very hand of Dennis Ritchie, or Ken Thompson, back in AT&T labs. Get your facts straight.

#

Troll

#

It's so bad that it's going to die? And yet you get so upset about it? I think you need a decaffienated brand. And start taking your prescription again...

#

Thank you Daryl, posting as 'Anonymous Reader'.
This makes the case! No, not your case, which is for the psychiatrist's couch...

#

>:D

#

Darl's sharp, clear-sighted intelligence, his oratorical gifts and flair for theatrical effects, his uninhibited opportunism and ideological radicalism blossomed in the service of an insatiable will-to-power.
Oh, I'm sorry,I mixed my reading of Darl's propaganda of a million lines with an article on Joseph Goebbels.
I hope Darl understands the future when you use the "Big Lie" in pursuit of power.
Darl's behavior is reminiscent of Joe McCarthy.
I have a list of one million lines.

#

It appears to me Darl McBride has gone completely off his nut. Every day his claims become more and more bizarre, and it seems every day he comes up with some new piece of MUD (Malicious Unsubstantiated Drivel) to sling at the Linux community. I believe if SCO shareholders have any desire at all for SCO to continue they need to dump McBride before he destroys the company.

#

I think the problem is that these people (SCO and SCO's lawyers) just don't understand the GPL. Microsoft doesn't understand it, and all its efforts to combat it are failing.

I think that trying to understand GPL is driving these men crazy.

I can picture, in about a months time...

Darl McBride: "That Gnome desktop... you know who made that? GRANNY MCBRIDE! She knitted a pattern of it into one of my old sweaters when I was five! And it's been stolen! It's a direct imitation of Granny McBrides patented pattern on my old sweater. My lawyer says I have a case too. Actually, while me and David were playing snap, he told me that he got a wish from a fairy yesterday, and he wished that Linux would go away and that we'd find lots of treasure. So we really have to have a case."

Doctor: "Darl, it's time for your medicine now..."

#

Michaal Jackson is suing Darl McBride.

Apparently, he has stolen and extended Michael's completely wacko image!!

#

From the VNUNet.com Article:

"SCO maintains that its code is primarily found in Linux dealing with several key areas: Non-Uniform Memory Access, Read Copy Update, journalled file system, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PowerPC 32- and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management systems."

Since this implies the bulk of the infringing lines of code are in these areas, has anyone counted what % of Linux kernel source code these functions consume?

I can't imagine that the garden variety x86 kernel has a great deal of PowerPC support built in (32- or 64-bit versions), which leads me to think that maybe the enumerated the possible number of different kernels (386, 486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, 586, 686, aplha, PowerPC (32, 64 bit), Opteron, Sparc (all), Playstation 2, ARM (all), other embedded, etc.) to arrive cumalitively at such a large number.

#

look at this:
<A HREF="http://perens.com/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html" TITLE="perens.com"> Analysis of Linux Code </a perens.com>

#

You cray son of a bitch.

#

Remember how much fun J.R. Ewing was as the Most Hated Man in America? Billy must be SO jealous...

#

"And I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spineless, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is! Hallelujah! Holy shit! Where's the Tylenolâ„¢?"

#

Hey, dont insult dog-kissing like that

#

I have to wonder whether or not Darl is trying to steal the Iraqi Information Ministers act. They both talk through the hole not usually associated with speech. Both are also being completely loyal to their discredited boss. Isn't it about time that SCOs accounts are opened up to see exactly who has been paying or giving them how much and why?

#

Parts of linux are BSD and other licences with a overlaying licence of GPL. Basicly SCO wants to win linux has its cards on the table about time SCO placed at least one example that can not be proven to come from a base source of linux. BSD programmers have provided code all over the place. Linux programmers have dug though BSD code when stuck looking for a fix. So you have a compost heap of new code and old code mixed. Just like at compost heap some of the stuff that goes in really stinks but in the end you get a good product.

Mind you SCO might be able to get away with chop shoping linux but there will still be sections off limits a court ruling that the BSD sections of linux can be remove and used in a indepentant program without following GPL. Note this would not be linux it would be a new OS.

Number 2 GPL and BSD are not confliting licences just directional licences GPL can be put over BSD programs but BSD cannot be put over GPL programs. There are licence to licence changes here.

#

As Hitler says - If you are going to lie, don't make a small lie where people can check you out but instead make a lie so collosal and so adamant that people find it very hard to believe that somebody can be that evil. You see, this trick works because most people always give others the benefit of the doubt. Only solution to this is to confront them head on and never tire in demanding that the offending code be revealed. After all if you are charged with a crime, one of your constitutional rights is you will be informed of the crime you are charged with (we are not in the Soviet Union). Without that cooperation, this is just plain slander and extortion.

#

Hitler was a smart but evil man, and a little mental, I'm just getting sick of SCO causing all this commotion, it used to be all quiet except for distro releases and new packages<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P

#

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75144&thresho<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> d=5&commentsort=0&tid=106&mode=thread&cid=672<nobr>9<wbr></nobr> 327

OT: (You forgot the best part....) (Score:5, Funny)
by TitaniumFox (467977) on Monday August 18, @11:01PM (#6729327)
(Last Journal: Friday July 04, @02:37AM)

SCO: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...if you wish Linux dead, by all means keep moving forward.
IBM: Let me explain...
SCO: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
IBM: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
SCO: There will be no arrangements...and you're killing Linux.
IBM: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
SCO: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
IBM: You're that smart?
SCO: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Kernighan, Ritchie, Torvalds?
IBM: Yes.
SCO: Morons!
IBM: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
SCO: For the kernel? To the death? I accept!
IBM: Good, then untar the source code. [SCO# tar -xvfz code] Inhale this but do not touch.
SCO: [taking a vial from IBM] I smell nothing.
IBM: What you do not smell is our patent portfolio. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in source code and is among the more deadly portfolios known to man.
SCO: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
IBM: [turning his back, and adding the patents to one of the code trees] Alright, where are the patents? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both compile - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
SCO: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of company who would put the patents into his own source code or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the patents into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You've made your decision then?
SCO: [happily] Not remotely! Because Linux's SMP code originally came from England(1). As everyone knows, England is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the code in front of you.
IBM: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
SCO: Wait 'till I get going!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...where was I?
IBM: England.
SCO: Yes! AH! And you must have suspected I would have known the source code's origin,so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You're just stalling now.
SCO: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the patents in your own code trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the patents as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me!
IBM: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
SCO: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the patents are!
IBM: Then make your choice.
SCO: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind IBM] What in the world can that be?
IBM: [turning around, while SCO switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
SCO: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [SCO laughs]
IBM: What's so funny?
SCO: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets compile, me from my code and you from yours. [They both compile]
IBM: You guessed wrong.
SCO: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched branches when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against SCO, when intellectual property is on the line!

SCO: HA-HAHA-HAHA AH-HAHA-HAHA (!!) (THUD!)

[IBM removes the blindfold from Linux]

Linux: Who are you?
IBM: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Linux: And to think, all that time it was your code that was patented.
IBM: They were both patented. I spent the last few years building up an impressive patent portfolio.

(1) smp.c<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/*

          2 * Intel SMP support routines.

          3 *

          4 * (c) 1995 Alan Cox, Building #3

          5 * (c) 1998-99, 2000 Ingo Molnar

          6 *

          7 * This code is released under the GNU General Public License version 2 or

          8 * later.

          9 */

Re:OT: (You forgot the best part....) (Score:5, Funny)
by Ibix (600618) on Tuesday August 19, @07:15AM (#6731291)

5 * (c) 1998-99, 2000 Ingo Molnar
"My name is Ingo Molnar. You steal my source code! Prepare to die!" Sorry...

#

I have over a million bars of gold bullion in fort knox. Id get them, its just only I know that theyre mine and only I know which ones.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;B

#

retarded. unfunny

#

For some businesses, the single most important factor about an operating system is its cost. And while Windows and Linux adherents debate non-stop over which offers a lower TCO, the marketplace -- based on server growth -- already has decided it is Linux.

Statistics about dramatic Linux sales growth are numerous, but here is one of the most telling: Statistics about dramatic Linux sales growth are numerous, but here is one of the most telling: Sales of Linux servers in the U.S. grew a jaw-dropping 90 percent in Q4 of 2002 compared with the same period the previous year, says Gartner Dataquest. And that was a period in which overall server sales inched up a mere 5 percent versus a year earlier.

If <A HREF="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22080.html" TITLE="newsfactor.com">Linux servers grew 90 percent</a newsfactor.com>, and they are part of the overall server sales figures, any guess where non-linux server sales are going?

If you can't figure it out, let me help:

HP's Earnings Miss Analysts' Expectations

The <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030820/ap_on_hi_te/earns_hp" TITLE="yahoo.com">server business</a yahoo.com> also did not fare as well as expected. Though HP reported stronger sales of its high-end Superdome servers, it had disappointing results from its mid- to lower-range Unix machines.

So if you didn't understand that, had it not been for HP's high-end Superdome servers, it's mid-to-lower-range Unix machine sales would have been even more disappointing.

 

#

godamnfucking mormons

#

Darl and cohorts are spewing 1000's of words every day. Linus, in all his efficiency, just says: "He's lying". Gotta love it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

This statement pre-supposes SCO believe they have copyright on certain characters and words such as:

      'if'

      'while'

      '}'

      '{'

      ';'

      'main'

      'int'

      'char'

      etc.

Give the man his credit, he's succeeding in damaging the credibility of Linux in the non-technical community. That's all SCO needs to do in the short term. What I find curious is that IBM haven't filed a gag order re inflamatory/unsubstantiated statements on him pending the case.

#

Someone (IFW) observed yesterday that some of McBride's comments are calculated to generate the sort of discussion going on in this chat. Basically he's using the Linux community to be devil's advocate for their case, i.e. to see where their case breaks down under scrutiny. Linus' typically efficient: "He's Lying" doesn't arm the SOB with more material.
We need to generate significantly more disinformation to screw up this policy. For example did you know that SCO have entered into agreements outside the US whereby they GUARANTEE that the code in Linux does not infringe copyright or patent law in order to get around local legislation re government contracts. (WCTYBTWHTKY, J/K)

#

What does WCTYBTWHTKY, J/K mean?

(YJMTU = You Just Made That Up)

#

WCTYBTWHTKY =
We Could Tell You, But Then We'd Have To Kill You.
(cf. WJM)

J/K = Just Kidding

see Cygwin site acronyms (can't remember the URL)

#

http://cygwin.com/acronyms/

#

I was wondering when SCO's case would begin to splinter and break apart, this is just the first crack to appear. So McBride says over a, “Million Lines� of code in Linux belong to SCO, well we got some really stupid thieves working on the Linux Kernel then. This means the only thing developers were doing with the 2.3 Kernel before it went to 2.4 stable was converting Unix code. This means ALL developers of the Kernel were doing this. Apparently according to McBride the Linux community has ran out of original ideas.
Also, if you follow the links on the analysts of SCO slides it presented at a trade show there are 2 problems:
1.)It's from a 1980's PUBLIC distributed version of UNIX.(Excuse me, Linux decided to include this 20 years later and it was also given out for free!)
2.)The C code their showing won't compile, the compiler would bomb out on you.

It's going to be interesting to see the next crack that appears in their case.

#

cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/linux-2.4
find . -type f | grep -v Documentation | xargs wc -l

RESULT: 272154

That's the number of lines I count, so my copy of the kernel must all ready be missing the MILLIONS of lines of code that SCO claims have been copied.

#

That is not quite the correct way to calculate this.

find . -iname *.[ch] -exec cat {} \; | wc -l

Is more correct, and gives 4481329 on my kernel. (2.4.21 + some small patches)

#

Are we ignoring the "Sun factor"?

- Although Sun has done some great things for open source (OpenOffice.org, namely), they've never exactly been at home with the open source community -- look at some of the controversy surrounding Java, Java-branding, and the JCP, for example. Their Linux strategy has been haphazard, with Sun struggling to see a world beyond their Solaris comfort zone -- and their relationship with the Linux community has been strained at best.

- Let's not forget that Sun dropped their own branded version of Linux right before the SCO fiasco. Sun already has a Unix license from SCO (stronger than IBM's, apparently), and therefore a Sun-branded Linux would most likely be FREE FROM ANY POTENTIAL SCO-LICENSE ENTANGLEMENTS. Interesting timing there.

- Despite all of the above, Sun is one of the largest computer companies with an announced committment to Linux. Why then haven't they spoken out again SCO's ridiculous tactics?

Sun Microsystems... where do you stand?

#

... Microsoft, Sun and SCO.

SCO: once the case is gone, Microsoft will aquire all Unix rights, just for a case. SCO as a company will shut the door, evyone left will be laid off. Microsoft will use Unix right to kill the rest of what's left of Unix. Well, only Sun can get away from it. Hmm... Sun...

Sun: "the dot in every com" had a profit mostly on dot-coms, who did not count any expanses. Dot-coms are gone, so is the profit of Sun. The company is in a trouble. HP has just swallowed CPQ and will choke on Sun. IBM do not need Sun. The only two guys who can buy them is Larry Ellison and Bill Gates. I am suspicious that Oracle is in a similar problem as Sun is, in a long term. Thus, only Microsoft has left. What they will do with Sun? Hmm... How about XP on Sparc? Sounds like a model of Apple.

#

it should be trivial to get injunctions to keep MS from doing anything that affects other OS's on the market. Just a thought.

#

Can you believe that this domain name still hasn't been taken...sweet dead baby Jesus, what's the world coming to...?

#

Cheezus...for the love of binaries...

Darl mcBride is just an extremely well-paid puppet
who will dance as long as it takes because Bill pays
him so well that he'll sell his own mother if he had to.

Bill Gates is one of the most intelligent persons on this
planet - he knows the human mind well.

Humans are habituos creatures of comfort, you can
potty train anyone with the knowledge of pain and
pleasure. You WILL abide because your age is
killing you slowly and you want to die with pleasure
and not the continuos plagues of idealistic pain.

Humans are vein, you want fame and love the
crowd telling you how successful you are.
If there's an easy way with the bigger crowd
you WILL leave your idealistic friend to struggle
alone because you fear the loneliness and the
lack of acceptance.

The HamsterKing

#

Cool, but make sure you put the trademark notice on the home page or they might sue you. Like this:

"Unix(tm) is a trademark of The Open Group".

#

I'll never get to work again!

#

Fascinating, this is!

I bought OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 boxed copy at a flea market.

Page 4 from hard copy User's Guide: "Sourcecode for OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 is available freely at the following location: ftp://ftp.calderasystems.com/"

Page 19: "Where did Linux come from? Linux was started in the early 1990s as a small research project by a Finnish college student named Linux Torvalds."

Page 19: "The GPL provides that the source code to the software must be made available and that no none can restrict access to it. With this type of software, anyone can examine and extend the source code, but all such work must be released for public use."

As my good colleage, Mr. Spock would say: "...fascinating..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

...put up or shut up.

I mean, it's like, show what you feel is copyrighted or shut up about it.

The ONLY reason they won't show the code is because as soon as they do, it'd be taken out of Linux in 48 hours or less and then they can't proceed with suing the world.

SCO makes me sick, I wish they'd get bought out, and sold off into little pieces and jackasses like McBride could be put out of work...

#

...remind me exactly of the people who were rooting for Napster. Thet shouted "death to RIAA", "Hillary Rosen is Evil" and guess what?, RIAA managed to close down Napster. The same will happen with linux and open source, everything is just a cess pool of copyright and IP violations. Everything, from the kernel, the KDE, Evolution, SAMBA, GAIM, GIMP are nothing but total IP violations of the commercial products. Reverse-engineering, copying features and making work-alikes are the only things open source developers are good at. After all Linux is a Unix work-alike. Evolution is a Outlook ripoff. Samba - Windows file sharing reverse engineered.

You really should see Apple's products - true innovation at work.

The only reason why you guys are shouting down SCO is because they plan to stop the gravy train of free software.

#

senseless troll alert!

Everything's just an improvement of earlier ideas. Time to sue everyone who made a better wheel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

Well, even if you were right (and you aren't - you can't even spell the name of this group correctly), it would still be bad news for you.

Have you wondered why more machines didn't crash the other day, with Blaster and Sobig? It's because they run a REAL OS like Linux.

As for Apple, ahem, your ignorance is showing - Apple uses BSD. Oh, yeah, so does Microsoft (Kerberos, for example).

Someday, when you actually know what you're talking about, you come back and visit, ok kid?

#

This can only come from an RIAA supporter or someone from the SCO camp, because only those two sets of people have such acidic disdain for the word "free."

How do you know Linux is a cesspool of copyright violations? All we get is daily flatulence from Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell and Mark Heise, that pinhead who calls himself an attorney. They are all greedy opportunists of the worst types.

Here's the reality: after all the claims regarding System V code being proprietary and being present in Linux code, it has been revealed that this was older code, already published in various books almost 25 years ago! Oh, crap?! SCO can't claim proprietary code, so now they are now down to invalidating the GPL. Why? It's the only leg they stand on because they are essentialy saying, "we know we gave code code under the GPL, but now we want to take it back. Oh, and by the way, everyone owes us money." They claim, mistakenly so, that federal copyright law always takes precedence, so GPL was never valid.

As Eben Moglen stated so succinctly:

"As IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren't any best arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what SCO's lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense."

In case you don't know who this person is, he is a Professor of Law at Columbia School of Law. He reviewed, and blessed the GPL.

And you should really check yourself when you make claims of riding a "gravy train." What SCO is attempting to do is just what you are claiming: they are attempting to hijack the work of thousands, well-intentioned people for their own financial gain. Nothing is more despicable, nothing more outrageous. Shame on SCO, shame on Darl, shame on Martha Stewart and Ivan Boesky...

#

If McBride's latest unsubstantiated claim is to be believed, the Linux kernel developers didn't actually contribute any new lines of code to the 2.4 release. It all would have had to come from SCO.

Actually, this is a logical fallacy. Just because there's one million more lines of code in the 2.4 kernel, doesn't mean that those are the only new lines. For all we know, all 2.5 million lines could be new code.

That said, it's pretty obvious that McBride is pulling nice round figures out of the air. One billion dollars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... one million lines of code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's all nice and neat and about as believable as a hollywood movie plot.

#

What if in all this brew - ha - ha somebody comes walking into court with the one line of code that binds ALL of the SCO stuff together. That line of code is written on a cafe' napkin ( the cafe' s been out of business for five years ), and the individual had to travel cross country to get there, and hasn't been back to that city since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Get the drift on this one ?

Those cashed in stock options sure wouldn't be worth the papaer, would they ! I guess the SCO folk's just missed out on the "dot.Com" and Enron bubbles.

J. Verhei

#