|
| Authored by: Leccy on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST |
Post your OT comments here:
---
To err is human.
To really mess it up takes a software patent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST |
It also reminds me of the "Light Sucker" analogy. Thanks for the
yuck!!
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST |
Punctuation, spelling etc NOT the plan!
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST |
| May I be the first to point out that nothing can and has been copyrighted. For
example 4:33 by John Cage. This isn't even just a bit of fun. Recently another
composer, Mike Batt, almost ended up in court accused of plagerism because of
the piece, "A One Minute Silence". Batt settled out of court for 100,000
pounds.
For those who may think that this was an April Fools joke, here is a
news
report.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST |
I have Nothing to contribute to their case.
--- vruz
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST |
When Odysseus is captured by the Cyclops and gives his name as Nobody!
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST |
And of course SCO still ends up with their original contributions, even if you
take away everyone else's contributions from the 2.7 kernel. After all, we know
that Nothing from Nothing, leaves Nothing.
And, as usual, the SCO are standing on Nothing. And physics being what it is,
Nothing seems to stop them or slow them down. To them, there's Nothing better.
I can think of nothing more to add... so we still have nothing.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dyfet on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:59 PM EST |
| Clearly if you can have a copyright on "silence", as upheld recently by courts
http://www.slashnot.com/article.php3?story_id=99 !!! then you can certainly
have a copyright on "nothing", especially a specific "nothing", like linux 2.7.
So
yes, under this analysis, even the SCO copyright claims can start to make
sense...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:04 PM EST |
Is this "Nothing" of which you speak already copyrighted/patented as
the great evil in the "Never Ending Story" ? Something that consumes
all leaving nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fb on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:11 PM EST |
Just recalling a Gahan Wilson's famous cartoon. Many people in vestments,
prostrating themselves before an empty pedestal.
One bystander asks another,
"Is Nothing sacred?"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mrcreosote on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST |
Nothing good can come of this......
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MeinZy on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST |
I feel compelled to come to SCOG's defense, as a matter of principle. Groklaw
has exposed the totality (Nothing) of SCOG's IP contibutions. Retraction of
such valuable, proprietary intellectual property and a commitment to never
mention such again is the only hope of avoiding subsequent legal recourse.
You have been warned!
---
Zy -- 'Square peg in a round Earth' - But working on those corners[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:58 PM EST |
So the millions of lines of infringing IP are the blank lines, and the linux
'experts' have foolishlishly been looking at the lines with marks on them? No
wonder linux still infringes.
This will cut many FOSS programmers to the quick, not being able to leave white
space without using SCO IP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 06:07 PM EST |
I need to start buying keyboards in bulk, or make sure that I'm not drinking
anything when I'm reading Groklaw.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 06:33 PM EST |
| Obviously SCO wants to claim all rights to
the intellectual device
/dev/null.
They seem to pull their logic from there,
and have obviously
placed most, if not all, of
their intelligence into said device.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 07:29 PM EST |
OMG!
that almost made sense!
ROTFLMAO!
---
=====
you can fool some of the people all of the time.
you can fool all of the people some of the time.
it's setting them straight that is %&#$@
http://pfro[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 08:43 PM EST |
| I contributed Absolutely Nothing™ to the Linux during my time there. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:12 PM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- - Authored by: AntiFUD on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 02:21 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:14 PM EST |
If SCO claims to have intellectual property in Nothing, then they are merely
following AT&T's copyright of Nothing from the 1980s.
The Unix command /bin/true always exits with the value 0. Historically, this was
implemented as an empty Bourne shell script: the shell in this case would
default to exiting with value 0. For some versions of System V, AT&T slapped
copyright notices on everything. This included the empty /bin/true file. Thus,
Nothing is indeed copyright by AT&T.
Obviously, since SCO thinks that they own the AT&T code, they also think
they now own this copyright on Nothing.
P.S I haven't been able find a copy of an AT&T/USL /bin/true with the
copyright notice. Can anyone link such a file to this thread? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: oldgreybeard on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:49 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 11:26 PM EST |
| They already did this to death in The Neverending Story. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:56 AM EST |
they call Sgt Schultz.
"I know nothing! NOTHING!"
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:30 AM EST |
As the Nothing contributed by IBM has been sold to many customers who bought
nothing from IBM over the decades.
We insist that we be reimbursed properly with an amount to be determined at
trial, but no less than the assets of all the Earth, for every occasion on which
IBM sold nothing to it's customers.
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:36 AM EST |
Some years ago, there was an ad for 'The gift for the person who has
everything'. It was an empty jar - a jar of Nothing [tm].
I hope the original holders now sue SCOX for infringing on their copyrights to
Nothing [tm].
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 07:16 AM EST |
| SCO's train wreck of a case.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 09:23 AM EST |
Of course what damages could SCO realistically expect out of all of this?
"Nothing" :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 09:27 AM EST |
I'm sorry. I cannot accept that Nothing is EVER inappropriate for unwritten
software. I can't accept that IBM has contributed anything except _appropriate_
Nothings to 2.7.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 02:09 PM EST |
I suggest they look for proof that Microsoft has been whispering Sweet Nothings
in SCO's ear.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hsjones on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST |
Wow, I'm in big trouble... So far, I have done Absolutely Nothing today! Now I
find that I'm infringing on SCO's ownership of Nothing.
Guess that means I need to do Something before sunset.
Crap... What are weekends for after all?!?![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:17 PM EST |
Yes, can you believe me... it has been in front of our eyes for this long time,
and nobody has noticed it? Or we are extremely blind or we dontn't have the
Intellectual level SCO seems to have... what kind of fools we have been!!!
Try this to count the number of infringing lines:
cd /usr/src/linux
for f in `find -type f | grep -v '.o'` ; do cat $f;done |grep '^$' -c
The result? :709968
This is for my 2.4.31 not pristine kernel source.
No wonder how can they say there are millions of lines of infringing code, just
think about all the kernel in 2.4 series...
_Now_ I recongnise where the infringing code is.
Also, I can see I have been infringing "their" IP since I wrote my
first program, I should be ashamed of my behaivour...
Ivan
-------
PS: for those who dont't know what the shell code above does, it counts the
number of lines that are empty in almost all source files, aka: SCO
"Nothing TM" IP
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST |
A logical development to "nothing"" (in context to software) is
how do you produce it.
We probably need "newlines" between the nothings.
A unix peculiarity to the production of a new line is different to WINDOW$.
Both use the ASCII codes but UNIX has a extra code.
Enter the "LF" line feed & the "CR" carriage return.
Unix uses just the LF , BUT windows uses both.
So WIndows uses the "enter key" which produces a "carriage
return" & a "new line/line feed".
FYI ,the utilities unix2dos, & dos2unix converts the file as required.
So now , UNIX & LINUX use a different "method and concept" .
That sounds like SCOspeak!
OH dear! Whats next!
Roger
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:39 PM EST |
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We the willing , led by the unknowing,
are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
We have done so much for so long, with so little,
we are now qualifiedto do anything
with nothing.
/Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:49 PM EST |
Around here i'm very responsible,
every time something goes wrong.
i'm responsible.
/Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 06:38 AM EST |
I laughed at you for asserting that there 'never would be' a 2.7, when Linus has
clearly stated that there will be, but that he's not going to open the tree just
yet.
I laughed at you for asserting that all contributions are made in public, when
people can and do supply private contributions - or at least descriptions of
them - straight to the kernel maintainers to ask if they would be suitable for
inclusion in future versions.
And I nearly laughed up a lung when I tried to imagine how else you think anyone
would refer to the next version of the Linux kernel *other* than by calling it
2.7.
So, yes, please do continue with this thread, it is indeed most mirthsome.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 07:35 AM EST |
Just remember that the whole universe came to be out
of nothing. SCO must realize this and believes that
if they own all of the nothing then they will own
everything at some point. What a great plan!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST |
Even if this "was" the real reason for SCO (Yes I know this is a joke)
wouldn't UC Berkeley setlement cover the "Nothing" (blank lines, extra
white space, etc.) in the Unix code?
I mean what college student hasn't added a little extra white space here and
there to increase the length of their documents/code?
Just a thought....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BassSinger on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST |
I am reminded of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon in which many people are festooned
with ceremonial robes and surrounding a pedestal which is empty. All of the
robes have a large "N" on them. There is an "N" on the side
of the pedestal. But the pedestal is empty. As the people are bowing down to
the pedestal, one says to another, "Is Nothing Sacred?"
---
In A Chord,
Tom
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM EST |
Now that was funny, but its scarry how true it feels.
But in reality whitespace realy isn't nothing at all
it is one of the following ascii characters
DEC 32, HEX 20, or OCT 040
But then maybe SCOG thinks they own the ASCII code too[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 15 2005 @ 11:36 AM EST |
oh come on, all these cliche's and no one came out with:
"NOTHING ventured, NOTHING gained" ?
oops, pardon the DEC 32[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 01:46 PM EST |
| They probably meant to ask for 2.4.7. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
