|
|
| SCO Reacts to Moglen and a MS FUD Source Confirmed. And How. |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 08:38 PM EST
|
Reaction to Professor Moglen's paper from SCO has been hilarious. Either that or I'm developing odd taste. This article made me laugh, anyway. Darl reacts: "'If you want to talk about desperate, it's the Free Software Foundation,' McBride told SearchEnterpriseLinux.com. 'If you go by what it says in the GPL, if you infringe on someone else's code, the only recourse is to either take it out or shut down the distribution. This validates our claims, and their only solution is to shut down Linux. If they shut down Linux, it's an unmitigated disaster.'" Poor SCO, just can't grok the GPL, no matter how many times we explain. We don't have to shut anything down. If you ever show us the code, we'll gleefully take it out, because we don't want it. Notice you have to show the code first and also prove you own it. You have a fine opportunity to do that in a Utah courtroom on December 5 in the IBM case. Stop horsing around. You knew that, right? And, Darl, what happens if you infringe on someone's proprietary code? Can you keep on using it? Or do you have to take it out? What's the difference? With proprietary code, you can pay to use someone else's code, if they agree to let you, but if they don't, you have to take it out. With the GPL, if you want to continue to use it, the payment is you must make yours GPL as well, if they are combined into one program, and if you also distribute the result. Or don't steal other people's code in the first place, if you wish to avoid "disaster". How about that for an idea? Maybe Darl has in mind the disaster to SCO if it had to stop using GPL code.
Notice how curt this official statement is -- more like the kind you get from the lawyer of an Enronesque executive the day they announce the arrest and there is nothing to say that will convince anybody: "'SCO stands by its claims and looks forward to proving it in a court of law,' A SCO representative told internetnews.com." And the Free Software Foundation is desperate? It looks like Moglen's paper was very effective indeed. Here are some details about SCO's web services product line. You wouldn't want to get the impression they are in the publicly-traded lawsuit business instead of the software business: "SCO Group Inc has released more details of its SCOx web services project and released the first fruits of its scheme. . . .
"These all combine to form what SCO calls the SCOx Application
Substrate (SAS), a foundation for building web services on top of
the operating system. 'A substrate is defined as being a foundation,
a material on which another material is fabricated,' said Scott Lemon,
SCOx chief architect.
"'Our intention is to create a foundation above the operating system from which you can create applications.' Lemon said the SAS would use virtual machines and web service technologies, as well as cross-platform languages to enable SCO Unix users to create new business applications and invigorate old applications. Further SAS components will include technologies related to web services security, orchestration, and encapsulation, according to SCO."
Fabricated, eh? . . . . Uh-huh. Notice even in a description of their services offering, the writer uses the word "scheme"? The SCO PR game appears to be kaput everywhere but in financial rags, where hope -- unbridled by actual facts -- springs eternal. I'm starting to lose my respect for Wall Street. A MS FUD Source Confirmed Remember back in October we did an article on Megan McArdle called "Why Microsoft's FUD May Be Doomed" in which we outed their sponsors, particularly Microsoft? There is more, much more, revealed by Nicholas Confessore, an editor of The Washington Monthly, who has written an article, "Meet the Press -- How James Glassman reinvented journalism -- as lobbying." He reveals that Tech Central Station, which published Ms. McArdle's article, is not only sponsored by Microsoft and others, as Groklaw pointed out, it is published by DCI Group, the folks who brought us astroturfing and who have done work for Microsoft in the past: "But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington 'public affairs' firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also 'sponsors' of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.
"James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. Lobbying firms that once specialized in gaining person-to-person access to key decision-makers have branched out. The new game is to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions, which means funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups. But the institution that most affects the intellectual atmosphere in Washington, the media, has also proven the hardest for K Street to influence--until now. . . .
"On closer inspection, Tech Central Station looks less like a think-tank-cum-magazine than a kind of lobbying practice. Which makes sense: Four of the five co-owners of TCS are also the co-owners of the DCI Group, the Washington public affairs firm founded by Republican operative Thomas J. Synhorst. TCS's fifth owner is Charles Francis, who is also a senior lobbyist at DCI and is listed on TCS's phone directory. And as it happens, three of TCS's sponsors--AT&T, General Motors, and PhRMA--have also retained DCI for their lobbying needs. (Both DCI's spokeswoman and TCS's chief executive officer declined to be interviewed for this article. However, after I requested comment, the Web site was changed. Where it formerly stated that 'Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C.,' it now reads 'Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C.') . . . .
"TCS's articles have also complemented work being done by DCI. During 2000, Microsoft contracted with DCI to perform various services, among them generating 'grassroots' letters opposing a breakup of Microsoft and launching Americans for Technology Leadership, an anti-breakup group funded in part by Microsoft and run out of DCI's office. Meanwhile, down the hall, Tech Central Station went on the offensive, inaugurating an 'anti-trust' section that over the coming months would publish little except defenses of Microsoft and attacks on the software maker's corporate and governmental antagonists, with occasional detours into the subject of lawsuit reform. (Microsoft smartly plugged some of the articles on its own Web site.)" A lot of the writers, appropriately concerned about their reputations, including Ms. McArdle, are issuing statements that no one told them what to write, as if that resolves the issue. No one, presumably, has to tell you what to write, if they know who you are. And the issue is Tech Central and what kind of hybrid "journalism" it represents. Deltoid, Tim Lambert's blog, has a helpful chart of all the articles Tech Central Station has done on Open Source. Here are some snips he collected from the articles, and both the titles and the quotes give you an idea of the tilt: "'The Programming Soviet' --'End-users have absolutely no influence over Unix or Open Source software'
'Closing the Door on Choices' -- 'mandating the use of open source just isn’t necessary and sets a dangerous precedent'
'California Scheming' -- 'software copyrights to open source advocates are a violation of free speech'
'The Free Software Lunch -- 'The General Public License amounts to an insidious attack on a hybrid system of public and private enterprise for developing software that has served us well'
'Source Socialism' -- 'For many, Microsoft’s problem is that it makes successful products'
'Open Agnosticism' -- 'it is hard to see the cooperative effort working over a period of years in an environment in which hardware changes continually and software must be modified in response'
'Open Source and Its Enemies' -- 'Both liberal principles of neutrality and public choice considerations weigh strongly in favor of adopting OSS when that’s feasible.'
'Is the Penguin Contaminated?' -- 'we can expect defiance, not cooperation, on serious issues like intellectual property from the open-source community'
'Why Open Source May Be Doomed' -- 'the object of this lawsuit is not to stop Linux from using the code; it’s to stop Linux from eating SCO Unix’s lunch. And it seems to me that it’s very likely to succeed.'
Check out the blog for actual links to all the articles. This is just to whet your appetite. You will notice one of the articles appears to be positive. On the blog, Julian Sanchez, the author of "Open Source and its Enemies" explains that he saw all the negative articles and he submitted his piece to see what would happen. What happened is they ran his piece but also De Long's negative "Open Agnosticism" in the same issue. There was never such an attempt at such "balance" in prior issues, when only negative articles appeared. Astroturfing is explained well here, where Josh Marshall also confirms that the About Us page for Tech Central Station has now changed: "The sentence that read ...'Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C.' now reads "Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C.'
"It wasn't an accident. It was because this article -- 'Meet the Press' by Nick Confessore -- was about to be published by The Washington Monthly." Groklaw's nose for FUD is pretty reliable. It's satisfying to have confirmation.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:35 PM EST |
if it walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
and sounds like a duck then it must be a duck
are we surprised?
NOPE
nice to have it confirmed
TRUTH always comes out
watch out sco
it will come out
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:40 PM EST |
The sad thing is the the con men are paying for this type of service and the
innocent investor(s) on Wall Street are going to be paying the price when the
real truth hits the fan!
If Microsoft would make software that is as good as it's Marketing, Lobby
efforts, and infoFUD... then, they could be successful, in the long term, on
just the merits of the quality of their software. Microsoft's support of this
infoFUD is another example of how they are indirectly trying to infuluence opion
and the markets concerning the SCO case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:48 PM EST |
In "Courting China" (U.S. News and World Report, Nov 24 2003)
print
journalist-with-a-clue Paul Andrews writes of the ongoing
Asian
Linux-Windows battle. Excerpts follow:
In a bid to make
inroads in the global marketplace, Microsoft earlier
this year offered to share
Windows source code with foreign
governments concened about security. Last
month, Beijing put Windows
under the magnifying glass for the first time. China
says it wants to
make sure Windows does not contain "back doors" or security
holes, that
could give spies, competitors, or hackers acces to Chinese
databases
and national secrets.
But squelching
China's love for Linux may be Microsoft's toughest
battle yet... The Chinese
lottery, the post office system, and
Guangdong province's accounting system all
use Linux. IBM is working
with Beijing to put China's social security system on
Linux...
Since 1999 the Middle Kingdom has endosed its own version of
Linux
called Red Flag, and in August the Procurement Center of the State
Council
mandated that by year's end only computers with
Chinese-produced software would
be purchased by the government.
In some ways
Microsoft is hedging its bets. While granting the Chinese
government unusually
broad access to its source code, it stops short of
handing over the whole
shebang by holding back roughly 10 to 15
percent of the code. What's more, the
Chinese will not be allowed to
alter Windows themselves. Any requested changes
must be sanctioned and
performed by Microsoft programmers. By contrast, China is
free to view
and manipulate Linux and open source programming ad infinitum.
Wherever it leads, the China-Microsoft pas de deux
is rife with
irony. For years, Microsoft rebuffed any effort to open up Windows
on
grounds it could be too easily copied and cloned by competitors and
crooks.
As recently as May of 2002, Microsoft's platforms chief Jim
Allchin testified in
antitrust court that disclosing source code to
competitors could endanger
national security and even threaten
American war efforts in
Afghanistan.
Andrews' article actually spans two full USNWR
pages, and is
considerably more detailed than one customarily expects from the
mainstream weeklies. Kudos to Paul and USNWR editors. Andrews' last point
bears
repeating: Microsoft will testify to anything - outright perjury
(possibly)
excepted - that supports their business model du
jour. Nothing new here, except
that the rest of the world is
finally catching on.
---
"Proprietary
software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is
a form of combat among the citizens of our society." (RMS) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:48 PM EST |
SCO may find representatives of SAS Institute insisting that they reconsider
their choice of acronyms. It seems that SAS has been making multiplatform
information transformation and presentation products for about 30 years or so.
There may be some confusion in the market if two products exist in the same
market with the same name. That is what trademark protection is about. But
SCO's philosophy seems to be "what's yours is mine, and what's mine is
mine". Another thing to watch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:51 PM EST |
| "SCO Group Inc has released more details of its SCOx web services project
and released the first fruits of its scheme. . . "
Man, at first I
thought they were coming clean on the stock manipulation. Then it started to
sound more like they're trying to incoporate the best new ideas from
open-source. ---
Dim gstrIANAL As String
(Oh, Lord, get me off
this project...) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:52 PM EST |
'software copyrights to open source advocates are a
violation of free speech'
Gotta like that, so if I write something and want to share
it with others not expecting anything else, I'm violating
free speech. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 10:57 PM EST |
It's funny (and sad) to see the responses on Galt/McArdle's blog entry on
the subject where she says no one ever told her what to write. Comment
after comment ridiculing the concept that she could possibly be
compromised. Ad hominem attacks on the Washington Monthly. And so
on. A nice little cheering section of illogic.
When you are a research institution and the cigarette company comes to
you and says they want a study done on the health effects of smoking,
and they pay you a lot of money, and refuse to tell you which way to
slant the study, don't you think the researchers can figure it out anyway?
And if they want more of that money, don't you think they can intuit on
which side their bread will be buttered? Voila! Study results that look
good to the client.
The same is undoubtedly true here. If TCS is run by an organization with
a particular ideology toward its lobbying and PR efforts, the reporters
and contributors quickly see which way the wind is blowing. If you want
to do well on your job, get promotions and raises and praise from your
boss, what do you think you are likely to do? Write stories slanted in a
way they will hate? Of course not. That way leads to poverty.
And the thing is, Ms. Galt/McArdle might truly believe the same way as
the owners of TCS do. In which case she can honestly state that she only
writes what she believes. There truly are people out there who have
worked themselves into a lather over open source. Some people are
passionate about capitalism in its purest, and money-grubbiest, form.
The point is that an editorial slant of a publication or web site shines
through. Whether she believes what she is writing or not, you can be
certain that her articles will slant one way. Since we now know who owns
her site, and given what they do for a living, we can see that this is not
the place to find an open discourse of ideas. It will be as one-sided as
any of the Microsoft astroturf campaigns. And now just as transparent.
None of the blog responders seem to have grasped this point.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 11:05 PM EST |
"Hi!
My name is Larry.
This is my brother Darl.
And this is my other brother Darl."
Larry
Date Uknown
Does anybody know when Darl last had an EEG done?
And if there was ANY brain actitivity at all?
I know 12 year olds that have a better grasp of the GPL
then Darl does.
I wonder if that makes them more qualified to be
SCO's CEO? They couldn't do any worse then he has.
And wouldn't be to hard pressed to do better.
George[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 11:06 PM EST |
What remarkable digging by Nicholas Confessore. And so the backstory we all
knew must be there is revealed about the McArdle piece.
I wonder when we
will figure out the angle behind lawyer Steve Henry from Wolf Greenfield and his
recent efforts to help SCO on the CDXPO town hall and at the Software Business
2003 conference in Boston.
And Confessore's piece raises a big concern I
have about Henry's efforts. What lobbying efforts are going on behind the
scenes to influence politicians and managers of the government infrastructure to
his position? If we know of these two appearances, how many more do we not know
about? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 11:10 PM EST |
This is the response I gave to the article linked to:
"McBride is not a programmer. Anyone who pays any attention to his absurd
ramblings have only themselves to blame when he (and they) are shown for the
farce he is. Despite all McBride has spouted off about the courts, SCOG is
dragging their feet in both the RedHat case and the IBM case. Anyone who desires
can check out the IBM case on the net. IBM was the first to request discovery
and has asked SCOG to provide specific details as to what the case is about,
including file and line number from UNIX Sys V that SCOG is alleging that IBM
has improperly donated to Linux. SCOG has replied with a list of files from some
LINUX (not UNIX) kernel or the other, just which one was not specified. IBM is
having to drag SCOG kicking and screaming into court where it (SCOG) has been
threatening to drag everybody else. Just when is the press going to do some
actual research on their own and realize how ridiulous the whole affair is? Once
that happens, and is reported as such, SCOG's stock will plummet to its actual
value, and SCOG and its scheme will collapse."
No one in the press has really quaestioned McBride on his programming
background, nor his legal background. I am wondering if Mr. McBride would
consent to an interview with PJ? I think that she would be just the one to ask
the right questions.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Reacts to Moglen - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 11:36 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Moglen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:34 AM EST
- Won't. Ever. happen. - Authored by: TrentC on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:43 AM EST
- SCO Reacts to Moglen - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:25 AM EST
- SCO Reacts to Moglen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 02:14 AM EST
- Darl Info - Authored by: Newsome on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 03:33 AM EST
- Darl Info - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST
- Darl Info - Authored by: Lazlo Nibble on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 02:27 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Moglen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:56 AM EST
- I'm not sure that's possible... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:39 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2003 @ 11:44 PM EST |
Here is Darl's angle, plain and simple.
I'm gonna talk "it's not my fault, it's yours" to the FSF folks.
I'm gonna talk "it's all a big misunderstang, you don't
understand" to the courts.
I'm gonna talk "we are on really soild ground and moving forward like a
steam roller" to the infestment (SP investment?) folks.
And I don't see that anyone is gonna do anything about it. HA HA.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:04 AM EST |
How megan McArdle expects to be taken seriously by any one but
"Objectivists" with a pseudonym like "Jane Galt" is
beyond logic.
While it is difficult for me to comment on Ayn Rand without resorting to
obscenities like "evil f***k**g b***h", one wonders what kind of
reporter would want to associate herself with a propagandist whose every novel
features a rape scene in which the woman wants it.
McArdle has either decided that she can make the most money by affirming the
worst impulses of the greed class that composes Rand's audience, or she is
completely bonkers. Or, more likely, both. In any case, there is no reason to
take her reporting seriously.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ADRA on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:19 AM EST |
"These all combine to form what SCO calls the SCOx Application Substrate
(SAS), a foundation for building web services on top of the operating system.
'A substrate is defined as being a foundation, a material on which another
material is fabricated,' said Scott Lemon, SCOx chief architect.
Just an FYI Scott Lemon is apparently another ex-novell soldier. We are seeing a
lot of those guys hanging around, aren't we?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:31 AM EST |
I'm absolutely sure there is no code to be put up in December. They are
desperate because IBM just asked the right questions.
I guess the Judge will ask them to compel and they will agree just to buy more
time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:47 AM EST |
Sorry, PJ, but those quotations, yuk, took away my appetite. It'll be a bit
before I can follow up on the link to that blog entry. It just turns my stomach
to think that any writer (good grief, now I've forgotten: were all those
quotes from the same writer? If so: Ugh!) could sink so low. But then, I
recall the days when magazines did real analysis of new products,
performed fair tests, and reported the results to their readers. This was a time
before the publications switched to shiny paper and, apparently, needed to fire
any writer that had any evidence of being capable of independent thought, that
shiny paper turnered out to be more expensive than the publishers originally
figured. (Pity, the plain newsprint did just fine. And the content was worth
spending time on. Nowadays those trade rags just pile up on the corner of my
desk after barely being skimmed through.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whet my appetite? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: trox on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:12 AM EST |
| It sounds like Darl has figured it out, the SCO no way out trap. If he gets the
GPL invalidated then SCO has thousands of copyright violations they are
committing, and if he does not get the GPL invalidated SCO is in direct
violation of the GPL license. It's not just the kernel it is all GPL licensed
software. One cannot disagree about the kernel but "we still want to use and
distribute Samba", sorry same license.
Trapped them in pretty hard he did. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:24 AM EST |
| http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:25 AM EST |
In Linux 2.6 Coming-Out Party In December, Linux kernel lead developer
Morton was quoted:
Morton said the crew of open-source developers
working on the Linux kernel are certain that no one has introduced thousands of
lines of Unix code to the Linux kernel.
"We're a fairly tight-knit
community who have been working together five years, and if a new person with
100,000 lines of code [tried to contribute], it would stick out like sore
thumb," Morton said. "You can tell when something has grown up in a different
environment and is ported over to another [platform]. We've gone though Linux
and looked at all the major subsystems, and we couldn't come up with anything.
We mentally took a walk though the kernel and came up with a blank."
He
did, however, cite two possible exceptions that might apply to the litigation.
"There was one obscure file system written by a person employed by SCO
and Caldera, but he said he developed it on his own time," Morton said, adding
the person got his boss' approval via e-mail. "We were quite comfortable with
that."
Morton acknowledged that the XFS and JFS file systems, which
were originally developed under a Unix license and then ported over to Linux,
could be a sticky issue that lawyers can exploit. "SGI did develop it. It could
be [SCO] has a legitimate case there, not technically, but on the letter of the
law," Morton said.
How solid is IBM's defense of XFS and
JFS?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:40 AM EST |
Now... isn't this interesting:
Oracle Developers Switch Allegiance to Linux. It's a story about Oracle,
but in there can be found:
Tarantella has been in the news for all
the wrong reasons recently, having had to make a number of cutbacks after poor
quarterly sales. The company has also been delisted from Nasdaq, and is being
investigated by the SEC over alleged "unauthorized practices" this summer that
involved a $600,000 financial restatement. It also recently raised $2.2m
in a stock placement to keep its head above water.
Given
new-SCO's intersting behaviour, I find it fascinating that
old-SCO-now-Tarentella is in trouble as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tarentella - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:28 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 04:59 AM EST |
"SCO is pushing details about their web services product line today. They
wouldn't want us to get the impression they are in the publicly-traded lawsuit
business instead of the software business:
"SCO Group Inc has released more details of its SCOx web services project
and released the first fruits of its scheme. . . .
"These all combine to form what SCO calls the SCOx Application Substrate
(SAS), a foundation for building web services on top of the operating system.
'A substrate is defined as being a foundation, a material on which another
material is fabricated,' said Scott Lemon, SCOx chief architect.
"'Our intention is to create a foundation above the operating system from
which you can create applications.' Lemon said the SAS would use virtual
machines and web service technologies, as well as cross-platform languages to
enable SCO Unix users to create new business applications and invigorate old
applications. Further SAS components will include technologies related to web
services security, orchestration, and encapsulation, according to
SCO.""
This has gone far enough. Time to hit SCO where it'll really hurt and come up
with an open source 'package' of tools that can directly replicate the above
without paying a penny to SCO.
With my fairly mean knowledge of some of the further reaches of corpo-speak, he
seems to be referring to Apache and Mono with a database backend, but he's
invented a couple of terms by the look of it.
Substrate is an underlying layer, nothing more. Web services orchestration?
Anyone know anything more other than the soft sound bites intended to impress
PHBs?
D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:17 AM EST |
As the author of that story can I just point out that, while it is nice that you
have noticed it and linked to it, it was actually written and published in
August...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 05:37 AM EST |
This is not the right place for it anymore, but alas.
There has been a really publically traded lawsuit in the past, from 1997 to
2001. Look for Dutch shares "Begaclaim". The company Begemann had a
claim for 1,2e9 guilders (about 0,5e9 euro) on the state and stock exchange, and
spun it off into a separate company with shares. In April 2001 the claims were
mostly rejected and the shares became nearly worthless. See for instance
http://oud.refdag.nl/econ/010406econ16.html (most other sources are in Dutch too
probably)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:00 AM EST |
The effect of Nicholas Confessore's article is damaged by its cheap,
irrelevent political shots.
Would the PR shenanigans be any less
unseemly if the DCI client list included Democrats and despots? That this
kind of tripe finds its way into an "investigative" article suggests the author
has at least one overarching agenda in which the unvarnished truth may be a
casualty.
The facts related to Microsoft FUD -- and SCO's descent into
lunacy -- should be strong enough to stand on their own. Innuendo and guilt by
association have no place in this forum. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:36 AM EST |
There are a couple of new articles at ZDNet listed in google news (sort by
date)
One of them is about SCO suing Linux users with Gregory Blepp (who incidentally
is identified as being in charge of SCOsource - has he replaced Sontag?)
The 2nd, when I click the link, leads to a page at ZDNet saying the article was
removed. Did anybody catch what this article said - or have an an alternate
link to it - I'm interested!
This is how the missing article appears in google news:
SCO's 'Las Vegas code': All show?
ZDNet.co.uk, UK - 1 hour ago
Code shown during a speech in Las Vegas by SCO chief executive Darl McBride to
demonstrate
how SCO intellectual property has found its way in Linux is nothing ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:46 AM EST |
A Google
News search on 'sco' just turned up the following
article:
SCO
's 'Las Vegas code': All show?
ZDNet.co.uk, UK - 1 hour ago
Code
shown during a speech in Las Vegas by SCO chief executive Darl McBride to
demonstrate
how SCO intellectual property has found its way in Linux is nothing
...
But ZDNet now reports at that link "This story is no
longer available."
Can anyone find this poor little lost article? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 07:52 AM EST |
| I doubt the SAS corporation (www.sas.com) will happily embrace their name being
applied to a SCO product, vapourware or otherwise:
"These all combine to
form what SCO calls the SCOx Application Substrate (SAS), a foundation for
building web services on top of the operating system. 'A substrate is defined as
being a foundation, a material on which another material is fabricated,' said
Scott Lemon, SCOx chief architect. " [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Moontop on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST |
"This does have the potential to shut down Linux. The longer the clock
ticks, the [greater the] potential for this to end up in court. And as this
happens, the more excited we get. If this plays out favorably in court, the
possibility of huge punitive damages coming our way is very high."
This is more addicting than betting on the Superbowl outcome in September, then
hoping your team comes through.
BUT, what do you do when the soap-bubble goes POP?
---
Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST |
Fishing for retaliation to justify yourself Darl?
To me, this is nothing but blatent childish provocation. It falls in the same
line as "I know you are but what am I", "your mother
too" and "my dad is stronger than yours".
It might work with immature people, script puppys and hacker wannabes, but for
most people, it will just raise a smile of contempt or give a sick feeling. Like
seing a giant train wreck about to happen in front of us and not being able to
turn away or stop it.
---
No guns, no bombs...just brains
The way it should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:31 AM EST |
| PC Pro is running an article quoting the SCO
Information Minister as saying that the files
that were
required to be removed from BSD are in Linux. He goes on
to say
that BSDi was require to add certain AT&T copyright
attributions to their
code and that the unattributed code
is in Linux.
Mr. Stowell, bring it on.
When you show us the code, then
you might have a case. But until then this is
just a
scheme. May you reap whatever reward is coming to you for
your
participation in it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Story URL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:33 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:37 AM EST |
I posted this on Jane Galt's site
(http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004498.html):
=================================
Hello
I just wanted to point out your attention to the fact that
www.techcentralstation.com runs on OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
As you can check it out yourself on netcraft.com, TCS was running on Microsoft
Windows 98 and MS IIS until 1 Nov 2001. Then they replaced IIS with Netscape
Enterprise Web Server.
Finally, since some time this year, they are running on Linux OS and Apache Web
Server. If you din't know yet, both Linux and Apache are open source software.
They use different licenses: GPL and Apache License. You may also look at
http://www.opensource.org/ - Open Source Initiative web site with the list of
all open source licenses.
I wonder why did TCS move to Open Source? Of course, it's coincidence and has
nothing to do with total cost of ownership or security problems with proprietary
software.
Cheers!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:40 AM EST |
| SCO's answer to IBM's motion to compell is at
sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-81.pdf. The saga continues... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:46 AM EST |
Daryl says that he is willing to let the code stay as long as he gets royalty
fees from it.
Now does this not contradict the statements he made saying that they need to
protect the code from being out in the open due to contracts SCO has with other
companies? If I recall that was his main argument for using NDAs to show the
code earlier. Might this open up the opportunity for a company to sue SCO for a
breach of contract if SCO allows the code to stay in the Linux kernel. This is,
of course, assuming there is any infringing code in the first place.
Just something I thought about. Any comments?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jachim on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:24 PM EST |
| He say that according to the GPL "the only recourse is to either take
it out or shut down the distribution." Yet, in the next sentence he
says "their only solution is to shut down Linux." What happened to
"taking it out", Darl? You just said there's two options, but now you're only
giving us one option.
SCOX - Small COX? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tyralf on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:52 AM EST |
Well, just to get some things straight.
Microsofts strongest point is its ease to set up a working system.
Setting up an entire AD with Exchange, XP clients and office is trivial as long
as you keep within the recommendations by microsoft, ie next, next finish
installations.
Practicly no special knowledge is needed, anyone who has played computergames on
their home PC usually manages this..
But as the updates, reorganisations, mergers, PHB's, support deals and other
factors come in to play this easy to set up environment proves rigid, brittle,
and notoriasly hard to manage and diagnose.
everything that made it easy to set up now back and bites you in the back end..
I work as a faily typical MCSE (thou I dont have the cerificates, just MCP, Why
bother...) and I constantly find myself trying some kind of ad hoc reverse
engineering just to figure out what they were thinking...
I'm cosiderd good at my job to keep these installations going
To be a good MCSE you have to be good at thinking beyond the gui tools and
figure out how it really works. unfortunatly the microsoft tests tests no such
thing. they test your ability to remember Bill's thoughts.
That is why I figured I'd quit my job and get back to the school bench to
really get to know computers before I return to the real world again..
ps. as every one knows. when a PHB sees a feture. the PHB wants the feture, at
any cost... ds.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
