|
|
| Linus as Antidote |
 |
|
Monday, January 26 2004 @ 01:36 AM EST
|
Linus just has a way with words, don't you think? BusinessWeek did an interview with him, and he said some useful and some memorably funny things about SCO. My favorite first: "Nothing to lose is a bad situation to be in. They're a cornered rat, and quite frankly, I think they have rabies to boot. I'd rather not get too close to them." He was asked what he thinks is motivating SCO: "I think there was a fair amount of bad feeling when IBM dropped out of the Monterey project [a joint-development project with SCO]. That was a big deal for SCO, and they had a hard time with that. Never mind the fact that it had long since become clear that the project wasn't going anywhere, and IBM would have been crazy to continue with it.
"So you have some pent-up anger at IBM, a failing business that was losing its market, and put it together with a greedy new CEO who has fought legal battles before, and what do you get?"
Linus totally gets it that the Novell-SCO copyright dispute has no significance in the greater IBM context, because their claims, in his view, are shaky anyway, even if the copyrights were theirs, because they can't seem to come up with any copied code: "The validity of their claims has always been very shaky, even regardless of the fact that Novell claims SCO doesn't own the Unix copyrights in the first place.
"The SCO claims have been shaky from the start because they haven't actually been able to show any particular copied code. It's like me claiming copyright on some article you wrote for BusinessWeek [without being] able to specify which article and which part of it I would have written. The fact that Novell now contests the SCO copyright ownership just makes them even more shaky." There is lots more in the interview, so hop on over and have a nice visit with Linus. Passing time with Linus is a good antidote to thinking about and writing about Dark Darl.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST |
boot
\Boot\ (b[=oo]t), n. [OE. bot, bote, advantage, amends, cure, AS. b[=o]t; akin
to Icel. b[=o]t, Sw. bot, Dan. bod, Goth. b[=o]ta, D. boete, G. busse; prop., a
making good or better, from the root of E. better, adj. [root]255.] 1. Remedy;
relief; amends; reparation; hence, one who brings relief.
He gaf the sike man his boote. --Chaucer.
Thou art boot for many a bruise And healest many a wound. --Sir W. Scott.
Next her Son, our soul's best boot. --Wordsworth.
(From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boot)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST |
| That Business Week is talking to Linus at all is encouraging. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:10 AM EST |
So basically SCO's arguments are just too wrong to even discuss
rationally.
SCO doesn't own the copyright on the files they are talking
about -- the
University of California at Berkeley does. But even if they
did, the Linux
files weren't even copied in the first place. And even if they
had been copied,
no copyright notices would have been removed, since
they didn't exist in the
original. There are literally several levels of SCO
being wrong. And even if we
were to live in that alternate universe where
SCO would be right, they'd still
be wrong.
Good to see some mainstream press printing what is,
basically, the true,
short unadulterated truth of the matter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:11 AM EST |
| Sanity is so refreshing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OK on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:15 AM EST |
| What time is it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:16 AM EST |
Linus stated: "SCO doesn't own any patents, so they
certainly can't
be claiming ownership."
The last time I checked
the USPO database, Caldera owns
one regarding an update interface, or
something lame to
that effect. If I am wrong, someone please clarify.
OFF-TOPIC: I was asked if I would be
interested in
giving
an update on the SCO/IBM case, and leading a
discussion
with a local FreeBSD user group. The meeting will be held
on Feb. 6th in Santa Clara, California (same city Linus T.
lives in, I
think. Locals, e-mail me for meeting
details). I'd love to hear some
suggestions on what
should be the most important items to discuss. I planned
on using the "top ten" article as a starting point, but
it's unavailable. I
will definitely inform them
about GROKLAW. Other suggestions would be truly
appreciated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:18 AM EST |
First, nice placement for IBM with a Linux ad on that page (for those who see
it, assuming it isn't everyone).
The first Q/A is pretty daming. Translation: "Not only is SCO wrong, but
there are layers on top of layers of their being wrong." Reminds me of a
model for good security. You don't rely on just one excellent security method.
You rely on a layer over a layer over a layer of good security.
Nice to see someone in a high position outright say its sour grapes over
Monterey. Its always been hinted at before.
Interesting to see new info on the Linus discovery efforts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:24 AM EST |
Also available on
Bus
inessWeek:
SCO's huge Linux suit against IBM is a long shot that may
yield nothing but bile
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:28 AM EST |
<I>Q: Finally, have you done a deposition for SCO yet?
<BR><BR>
A: No, they asked for the moon and the sun -- I've got tons of e-mails -- and
they weren't specific enough for me to automate [searches of my files to find
answers to] their questions, so the lawyers have been trying to pinpoint a set
of automated queries that both sides are comfortable with. And it wouldn't be a
deposition, they just ask for documents. In my case, that ends up being
basically e-mail.</I>
<BR><BR>
My <B>guess</B> of SCO's request:
<BR><BR>
Provide all documents relating to IBM, Novell, Red Hat, BSD, or any other
person, that Linux, or UNIX, source code, methods and derivative works.
<BR><BR>
Check over some of SCO's questions to IBM (cited in SCO's motion to compel
discovery), and you will see why I am making this guess.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST |
| Todays Dilbert seems right on (SCO) target :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:36 AM EST |
My favorite line from the article:
So basically SCO's arguments
are just too wrong to even discuss rationally.
Reminded me of a
famous quotation from physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who remarked about a colleagues
paper, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST |
Novell Will
Defend Itself Against SCO Suit - CEO
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Novell
Inc.'s chief executive said Wednesday the company has rights covering Unix
software and will "vigorously defend" itself against a lawsuit from SCO Group
Inc. . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 03:36 AM EST |
Passing time with Linus is a good antidote to thinking about and
writing about Dark Darl.
Excellent point, PJ. There is a stark
contrast between Linus and Darl Vendor (sorry). Anyone would share a Taxi with
Linus; I think I'd rather walk than share with the Darl.
Linus is in great
form and is deftly handling himself through out this fiasco. And I don't
think it's a arduous, conscious effort on his part to come across so at ease, so
approachable and so unflappable. I don't think SCOG was expecting the evenness
practiced by Linus; it sure doesn't help their PR. No, I think Linus comes
across so well because he has nothing to hide, no performance to play, no agenda
to push; he just needs to be who he is and do what he does.
Darl, on the
other hand, sounds tinny with his "Unconstitutional!", "Anti-American!", "NO
FREE LUNCH!" tirades. He just comes across forced. He's trying to raise moral
outrage against Linus, et al, but besides Forbes not many seem to bite.
And the damage he and Sontag, Blake, and co., have done to their company, their
partners, their wonderful "sales channel", and even their own customers!, is
astounding. Sure SCOX stock is up, and amazingly so, for now (I don't
pretend to understand the stock market; forget IANAL, I Am Not A Financial
Advisor), but the longevity of SCOX is ... truncated, to understate the
obvious. The aura around Darl is clouded with Lies (MIT Analysts, for
example), deceit (Boies? Contingency, yeah baby), betrayal
(UnitedLinux, Sales Channel, customers, Linux and other GPL developers upon
whom they built a company and now disparage), greed (demanding from the
world fees for a license it does not have the right to give based on claims of
infringed IP it has not specified or proved exists), and Microsoft
(*shudder*). Being Darl must suck.
---
SCO delenda est! Salt
their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iMeowbot on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 03:47 AM EST |
I just realized that the word in the headline is really
"Antidote"... with the
generous helping of editorial substitutions in the interview, and the
colorful language Linus tends to use, I really thought it said something a
wee bit different. Bleah.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 04:34 AM EST |
There are literally several levels of SCO being wrong. And even if we were to
live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be
wrong.
Got love linus. :).
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 04:58 AM EST |
Attention PJ, an accidentally over-revealing comment from team
SCO:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868104_mz063.
htm
He can't say he wasn't warned. In June, 2002, when Darl
McBride was getting ready to take over as chief executive at struggling Caldera
International Inc. in Lindon, Utah -- later renamed SCO Group Inc. -- he
mused that claiming ownership of some of the underlying code in the popular
Linux computer operating system could keep the company afloat. Even though
Caldera's revenues were declining, it was losing $5 million per quarter, and
its stock had slid below the $1 NASDAQ delisting price, the reaction of
outgoing CEO Ransom Love was instantaneous. "Don't do it," Love says he told
McBride. "You don't want to take on the entire Linux community."
June 2002?
I thought they were supposed to have engaged
the MIT rocket scientists who detected all the violations in May or thereabouts
of 2003? It sounds suspiciously like Darl decided there was a violation, that
"could keep the company afloat" -- and then went looking for
evidence!
And there's more: didn't Darl claim in a teleconference that
the 10b5-1 stock sales plans (all the executives dumping stock) were filed in
January 2003, long before he thought about litigation (which began in March
2003). Now we see that the litigation plan was done in June 2002!
And
there's more: SCO released NEW Linux versions between June 2002 and March
2003. Now, if they were aware this included their alleged violations, they
themselves were happy to ship them under a GPL license for 9 months. That
doesn't sound like a mistake - it sounds like an affirmative step to GPL their
code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST |
| Ano
ther article in BussinessWeek. So that makes three. This time with Darl
himself.
One response from, IBM:
An IBM spokesman said in a
written statement that IBM will not debate through the media a matter that's in
litigation. He added that as IBM said in its answer to SCO's amended complaint,
SCO's claims are without merit, and SCO did not give IBM any notice or warning
of them prior to filing its lawsuit.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 05:27 AM EST |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13813
huh!!!???!!?
Not that I don't think you shouldn't get paid, but, is this it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 05:52 AM EST |
| from the business week's image photo:
Darl
covered with several arrows ---
Sincerely,
Richard M. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dominique on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 06:08 AM EST |
I always like Linus' interviews, they are always...hmmm...funny and clear.
By the way, the article is dated February 2 2004...someone build a timemachine
while I was on holiday?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 07:07 AM EST |
| Read the article at WhatPC?.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST |
| Speaking of Linus, why is Bill Gates getting a knighthood for philanthropy and
not Linus Torvalds?
Bill Gates: Gives a few pennies (sometimes) on
the dollar back to developing nations after he's damaged their
balance-of-payments while locking up their data in proprietary formats and
attacking them for WTO IP violations. His example causes others to emulate him,
with similar detrimental effects.
Linus Torvalds: Improves
balance-of-payments of developing nations by freeing them from expensive and
legally hazardous software while giving them better access to their data,
demanding nothing in return. His example causes others to emulate him, with
similar beneficial effects.
Britain: A nation of shopkeepers,
somebody once said? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST |
| Read the article at
VNUNet.
The only correct response to this request is: There is no free
lunch.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST |
I think there was a fair amount of bad feeling when IBM
dropped out of the Monterey project [a joint-development project with SCO]. That
was a big deal for SCO, and they had a hard time with that. Never mind the fact
that it had long since become clear that the project wasn't going anywhere, and
IBM would have been crazy to continue with it.
"So you have some pent-up
anger at IBM, a failing business that was losing its market, and put it together
with a greedy new CEO who has fought legal battles before, and what do you
get?"
And the final bit of "injury" SCO couldn't stand
was IBM publicly praising Linux, saying how much stuff they were putting into it
such as NUMA, RCU, etc. The McBrides saw those press releases and decided
something must be done about this upstart IBM.
---
(I'm not a lawyer,
but I know right from wrong) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST |
Wasn't the Monterey project dead before Caldera purchased SCO from oldSCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST |
The mainstream press has awoke. Check out these articels in BusinessWeek.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868104_mz063.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868110_mz063.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mojotoad on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST |
| I don't think this quote is in the Groklaw quote database yet, but it's one of
my recent favorite Linus quotes. It's from the "Linux Code
Red" article at the Salt Lake City Weekly:
When asked if
he had any questions to pass along to McBride, Linus Torvalds chose to err on
the side of caution. “The less I have to do with Darl McBride, the better off I
am ... I don’t want for that ‘Darlness’ to rub off on
me.”
:)
Matt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST |
The SCO Group has stated the reason they cannot show the
"infringing" code in public is because of ownership
questions/problems.
Could this be a freudian slip about Novell owning the SYS V copyrights?
---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
IMHO IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST |
This math from Darl is pretty interesting:
"Very carefully over the last quarter, instead of sending out mass
invoices, we stepped very carefully and really had a lot of direct one-on-one
meetings with 15 or so companies. In the process of doing that, we learned a
lot. We listened. We talked. And we went back and forth. About 20% of those
companies signed licenses with us."
20% out of 15 = 3 companies. Great. Proves SCO can't make money on anything
besides law suits. F*cking idiots, they are. I am heating an extra serving of
popcorn for the aftermath and Darl announcing SCOs future business model! :-D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST |
What is indicated when 20% of the daily trading occurs in the last hour or so
of the trading day? Is there a name for this? I've seen this happen on several
occasions with SCOX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbn on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST |
Linux is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a kernal, a part
of an operating system which millions of people use daily. Linus Torvalds did
not single-handedly write an entire OS. What Torvalds and the rest of the team
working on the Linux kernal have accomplished is quite impressive; they should
be proud of what they've achieved. There's no need for self-aggrandizement by
taking credit for a host of other people's work or allowing other people to
assign credit which the Linux kernal team doesn't deserve. Here's hoping
Torvalds will sometime soon use his fame to set the record straight and properly
explain his role in a larger cooperative job, being proud of what he helped
bring about and sharing credit with others who have done likewise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 12:51 AM EST |
I can see the SCO spin on this now: "Linux programmers hate small furry
animals!" "Darl reports anonymous threats to his pet
hamsters!" And, of course, "Linux a threat to the world
ecosystem!"
If this goes on, I foresee a day when most people don't remember that
"SCO" and "undrel" were ever two separate words.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
