|
|
| SCO's Math Is Off, Or Maybe It's Their Ethics |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:58 PM EDT
|
Dick Gringas, a programmer and Groklaw reader spent the time to figure out some of SCO's math. They are talking about millions of lines of code. Dick has figured out the numbers for SMP/RCU/NUMA code in Linux, and even if you put them all together in one heap, it doesn't add up to millions of lines of code.
Here is Dick Gringas' work, and thank you for it:
***************************
Just finished spending about eight hours compiling info on the lines of SMP/RCU/NUMA code contained in the Linux kernel (see below).
I'm not a member of the Linux kernel community, but I've been programming for upwards of 35 years, the first 12 of which I worked on operating systems and compilers, so I have sufficient background to do
a credible job analyzing the code base.
Because I had to eyeball each file that possibly contained some of the disputed code, I thought I might as well include the name(s) of author(s) and the last copyright year. So without further ado, here's the data: Lines of code (LOC) in Linux SMP, RCU and NUMA.
The total LOC for all of SMP/RCU/NUMA is 5,124. To provide perspective, the total LOC for all of the Linux kernel is approximately 5.2 million, including the code for all twenty architectures that Linux will run on plus all the drivers for the myriad supported peripherals.
The results here were obtained by searching the kernel tree for:
1. a filename that contains the string smp/rcu/numa, or
2. a source file that contains #ifdef for SMP/RCU/NUMA.
Each resulting file was then manually examined and the lines pertaining to SMP/RCU/NUMA were counted.
Caveats:
All line counts include comments and blank lines.
Only files used as part of the Intel i386 architecture are included
because that's the only platform on which SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare run. Most of
the code for SMP and NUMA is completely different for other architectures, including the Intel IA64 (Itanium).
Not counted: source files that contain trivial code, i.e.,-
includes of header files (.h)
- variable definitions
- macro definitions
- calls to external subroutines defined in one of the principle modules, for instance, drivers for peripheral hardware
Names of authors and last copyright date is noted if copyright statements or authorship was given. If an author indicated his company, that is so noted. Where a source file was worked on by many programmers, only the
principle authors are listed.
Linux Kernel 2.6.0-test3 (latest as of 8/17/03)
Symmetric MultiProcessing (SMP) Code:
592 arch/i386/kernel/smp.c 1995 Alan Cox, Red Hat; 2000 Ingo Molnar, Red Hat
1186 arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c 995 Alan Cox, Red Hat; 2000 Ingo Molnar, Red Hat
24 arch/i386/mach-generic/bigsmp.c
295 kernel/module.c 2002 Rusty Russell, IBM
528 kernel/sched.c 2002 Linus Torvalds; Ingo Molnar
60 kernel/timer.c 1992 Linus Torvalds; Ingo Molnar, Red Hat; David S Miller; Alexey Kuznetsov
5 kernel/exit.c 1992 Linus Torvalds
35 kernel/posix-timers.c 2002 George Anzinger, MontaVista Software; Richard Henderson
22 mm/swap.c 1994 Linus Torvalds
60 mm/slab.c 1997 Mark Hemment; 2002 Manfred Spraul
118 include/linux/smp.h
67 include/linux/smp_lock.h
113 include/asm-i386/smp.h
44 include/asm-i386/mach-default/smpboot_hooks.h
133 include/asm-x86_64/smp.h
85 include/asm-x86_64/pda.h
3367=Total SMP Code
Read-Copy Update (RCU) Code: (actually part of SMP code)
267 kernel/rcupdate.c 2001 Dipankar Sarma, IBM
135 include/linux/rcupdate.h 2001 Dipankar Sarma, IBM
402= Total RCU Code
Non-Uniform Memory Architecture (NUMA) Code:
164 kernel/sched.c (see under SMP)
58 arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 1995 Alan Cox, Red Hat
25 arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c 1995 Alan Cox, Red Hat
106 arch/i386/kernel/numaq.c 2002 Patricia Gaughen,
IBM
429 arch/i386/mm/discontig.c 2002 Patricia Gaughen,
IBM
129 arch/i386/pci/numa.c no copyright statement
19 arch/i386/mach-default/topology.c 2003 Patrick Mochel, OSDL; Paul Dorwin, IBM; Matthew Dobson, IBM
186 drivers/acpi/numa.c 2002 Takayoshi Kochi, NEC
23 mm/page_alloc.c 1999 Kanoj Sarcar, SGI
~50 mm/slab.c 2002 Manfred Spraul
166 include/asm-i386/numaq.h 2002 Patricia Gaughen,
IBM
1355=TOTAL NUMA Code
Dick Gingras, August 19, 2003
*********************************
PJ: I asked another programmer to repeat the work, and he reports that the work is good in his opinion, with minor number differences, but not of any significance to the main point. Gingras chose to use the 2.6 kernel, because it presumably has the most high-end code.
Then I got another email, and another coder has been doing some math homework too, and when he also found the code can't add up to millions of lines, he has a theory: I think SCO is including everything that _uses_ the 3 disputed technologies and not just allegedly copied SYSV code. I grepped for files that use the 3 technologies (using a rough method) and counted their lines.
$ grep -irlE '_smp|smp_' . | xargs cat | wc -l 1120087 (sco claims 750k)
$ grep -irlE '_rcu|rcu_' . | xargs cat | wc -l 79138 (sco claims 110k)
$ grep -irlE '_numa|numa_' . | xargs cat | wc -l 41809 (sco claims 55k)
The figures don't exactly match but they're in the right ballpark. I think this is similar to the method SCO has been using to discover "derivative forks". They think anything that links against their allegedly copied SYSV code is a derivative work of SYSV. For example, the ext2 filesystem code uses spinlock code from the SMP core. I think SCO is claiming that ext2 is "copied" from SYSV because of those spinlocks.
I hope I've got it wrong because if this is what SCO is doing then they're engaged in a IP land-grab. They're using their allegedly copied SMP and NUMA and RCU code to steal millions of lines of code from thousands of Linux copyright holders. The hypocrisy of SCO claiming they're protecting IP rights for the "little guy" while trampling over the IP rights of Linux copyright holders... it makes me sick to the stomach.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Please, is there any possible way we can make these "MIT Rocket Scientists"
testify in one of these cases? I'm really, really curious about these
fascinating new fancy-pants analytical techniques they used.
Paul Krause[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
| heh heh
I'm sure they will testify. If SCO doesn't call them, IBM and Red Hat are sure
to.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
| After reading the code analysis by Dick Gringas, I had a really scarry
thought. What if M$ decided to buy SCO as SCO stock starts to tank?
Does all that then become property of M$? Is any body actually paying
attention to what M$ is doing behind the sceens? They have been very
quiet. I have this great fear that this is all a ploy by M$ to destroy
Linux by burying it in so much legal muck and myer that it may never
see the light of day again. Look how long M$ was able to drag out the
anti-trust suit.
Thanks for doing a SUPER job!
Kedric Bartsch
Kedric Bartsch[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
| MS buying SCO
(a) Won't happen because if IBM win on their counter claims, MS would have to
pay up
(b) Even in the USA (let alone EU) where anti-trust enforcement is pretty weak,
this would never fly.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
| MS buying SCO
(a) Won't happen because if IBM win on their counter claims, MS would have to
pay up
(b) Even in the USA (let alone EU) where anti-trust enforcement is pretty weak,
this would never fly.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
| I have a question for anybody
SCO has big plans around open source, GCC, Samba, Perl, etc. They've announced
new products around it and right after the UNIX in Linux show, they did a
training session in their conference on GNU tools.
Now if SCO don't accept GPL and/or think it's invalid, what right do they have
to distribute this code?
Can somebody (FSF?) get them to say "Yes we accept the GPL" or stop them
distributing the code.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
Odd, magnus's and my early comments on this article have vanished. Wonder how
many other commends have been lost.
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
erm, latest article has now dissapeared?
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
| PJ,
In response to your statements about "another programmer", the tack he took is
exactly how I got started, but I quickly found that the vast majority of
references were, just as he said, calls to the spinlock routine, as well as
other calls to subroutines in the mainline smp/numa/rcu modules.
Additionally, any source file that contains a reference to one of the mainline
routines must also include the appropriate ".h" include file so it can also
reference the appropriate data structures.
It's absurd for SCO to count these lines as copyright violations, otherwise
everyone who ever wrote a paper or book would be in violation for using
footnotes to refer to other publications.
There were also many references so the words smp/rcu/numa in comments, a large
proportion of which were "This code is SMP safe". Those comments were inserted
when a major SMP review of the code base was done.
The bottom line was that only a human review of the code could give an accurate
count of the actual number of lines devoted to the SMP subsystems. Any other
method will produce gross inaccuracies.
Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum
erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20277500,00
.htm
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
| This is very touching:
http://linuxtoday.com
/developer/2003082001326OSCYNT
The Samba developers criticize the hypocrisy of SCO, who bundled their GPL'ed
SAMBA source code into their recently (today's forum) announced release of the
latest SCO-closed/OpenServer product:
"....... Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our
principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove
of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO. "
I've made a living of developing commercial software, and have released some
source code to the public domain (before the GPL existed) and as much as I
respect Smaba's statement on principles, I'd have sued SCO for every dime they
got, if they steal my code while calling me a theive! It's treuly disgusting.
SCO's like a bad dog, biting the hnad that feeds it. But unlike a bad dog, SCO
then sues the owner of the hand that feeds it, after taking a bite.
tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
| Thoughts from CNET news.com editor
Michael Kanellos is a Senior Dept. Editor (Enterprise Computing and Personal
Technology) with CNET news.Com. I contacted him regarding the SCO Forum code
viewing. He was in no hurry to leap to any conclusions, and I tend to agree.
Like any good zombie movie, SCO just won't die that easily. I quote here with
Michael's permission. (Note that, like the rest of us, he is basing his opinion
on the cards currently on the table. He's calling it according to information
known by him at the present.):
"What you are looking at is a very small portion of the evidence," Michael
pointed out. "They were in our offices a little while ago. Showed us the same
pages. Most of the evidence is not being revealed publicly, so not definitive
either way."
Michael felt that SCO had mishandled the display of the code at their annual
forum, and that "[they] should have said they are only showing a tidbit. There
are literally thousands more pages. They actually don't release it all because
it would create other problems. For instance, they can't show off the source
code to Unix V (much) without revealing their own intellectual property, which
would then slap them with a suit from investors. Also, ibm could start building
evidence for their case early without doing proper discovery."
While happy (for now) to accept SCO's party line, Michael is already somewhat
battle weary and showing signs of the SCO thousand-yard stare: "Sadly, we'll all
probably be in retirement homes with tubes in our noses by the time this gets
resolved."
Michael can be contacted at his news.com email address (see site), but you might
want to save your anti-SCO salvos for someone else. He's just the messenger.
"This case is too crazy and I dread getting more hate mail if I am actually
wrong. Hell, even if I turn out to be right I'll get a ton of mail."
- Andrew Ferguson
Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
When a person with principles fights someone without principles, the principled
person sometimes has to absorb low blows. Fortunately for the person with
principles, a (hopefully) impartial judge is watching and taking notes and will
ultimately decide this fight. So let the Samba team have its principles. When
this is over, they will have won and will still have their principles. A few
unfair blows in the meantime won't kill them or us.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
| What I don't understand is that this code that was revealed, regardless of being
published in a book or BSD Licensed, was copyrighted to SGI. Are they saying
they suddenly own SGI or that IBM just up and decided to give the code to SGI
who then placed it into Linux? And if the latter is their reasoning, why aren't
they also suing SGI? Why do I have the feeling most of these alleged millions of
code lines are copyrighted by people who have absolutely squat to do with SCO or
IBM?
More and more it does appear SCO, in some kind of corporate-wide psychotic
episode, intends to claim that half the Linux OS belongs to them without a shred
of proof other than "Because we say so."?
What can they possibly have up their sleeves that would make their fevered
brains think they could lay claim to half the OS and, if such a McGuffen exists,
how does it tie into IBM?
What Holy Grail of evidence could they possibly possess that could implicate IBM
as having purposely inserted code into the Linux codebase that doesn't belong to
them? This is what they have to prove. They have to prove it was done and that
they own the code and that they didn't release it as open source. Fat chance
there.
All they've shown thus far is a dog and pony show.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
| Have y'all seen this article? http://www.i
nfoworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscodivide_1.html
They interviewed some SCO forum attendees and got their opinions of this whole
debacle.
My favorite quote:
Developers at the presentation were more frank, saying that SCO was, in fact,
dependent upon the GNU tools ... "The OpenServer compiler is crap. Without (the
GCC) they would be up the creek," said Hans Anderson, the director of software
development with Price Data Systems in Louisville, Kentucky.
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
| In the gross over-estimation of the lines of code they're claiming, they've
managed to make the assertion that 1/5 or more of the Linux kernel code base is
stolen from Unix. I can't really think that from kernel version 2.2 to 2.4 that
1/5 of the entire code base was significatnly changed with regard to the
mentioned areas (SMP, RCU, etc), and that 1/5 of the code was copied from UNIX
source. The total lines as shown here are only about 5000 for implementation in
these areas though, so how exactly does this account for the several hundered
thousand 'stolen' lines? Does just using a spinlock make the rest of the source
a derivative of the spinlock code? Absolutely not.
One thing which also bothers me is that their licensing scheme also includes
fees for embedded devices which would never use SMP, JFS, RCU, or NUMA. These
setions of the code would be explicitly removed from the kernel anyway. In an
embedded device where memory footprint, etc is highly important, you're not
going to include these in the kernel as they just eat up space and are never
used. So how in the heck does somthing like a PDA need to be licensed if its
using a non SMP, NUMA, etc kernel?
Just a couple of quick thoughts which have been nagging at me for a few days.
Tomcat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
| Z, you have to remember everybody who attended the SCO presentation, according
to press reports, had to sign an NDA. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that
they didn't think anybody would be analyzing the slides to this extent.
As to the code, I read it was contributed by SGI, accepted into Linux by HP (I
can't confirm the later, I imagine carefully reading of kernel mailing list
would confirm it).
Further, the code, or very close, is already legally (without infringement of
copyrights) in BSD and older AT&T Unices. IANAL, but I believe Linux can
legally use it because it's in BSD. System V can have the same code, because
they either got it from BSD, or more likely inherited it also from an older AT&T
variant of UNIX.
Darl has repeatedly talk about the possibility of an IBM acquisition, from an
early stage, and more recently a settlement. Yet according to IBM's court
filing, SCO would not respond to requests from IBM about what SCO is claiming is
infringing or how SCO thinks IBM is breaking the AT&T license, except (possibly)
to refer to SCO's court filings. Therefore, I would opine, it's poissible that
EITHER Darl might have thought he could get what he wanted without showing his
"evidence" or even clearly stating a claim, OR Darl wanted people to think he
had a chance to get what he wanted.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
| Update to Perens story, with Linus comments too
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20277500,00
.htm
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
| It becomes very clear to me that McBride, Sontag, Stowell are nothing more than
common thieves. They gives absurd reasons to justify their stealing of the works
of others.
That's what they really are: common thieves.
Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
| It's not Samba, it's not ggc, but it is showing an interesting way for open
source contributors to tell SCO what they think about them, without compromising
any principles:
From http://distcc.samba.org/
ftp/unpacked/distcc/NEWS
"PORTABILITY:
* SCO/Caldera operating systems are no longer supported due to
their recent absurd attacks against Linux and IBM."
What tool this is. From http://distcc.samba.org/index.html
"distcc is not itself a compiler, but rather a front-end to the GNU C/C++
compiler (gcc)"
Nils
Nils R Grotnes[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| Supa, Just so you won't spend time puzzling, the disappearance happened because
when I put the article up, I immediately saw that the software (or I) posted an
earlier version, with a mistake. Correcting in this software does sometimes
result in a loss of comments, although not always. This all happened in a
matter of a couple of minutes. If you commented that quickly, all I can say is
wow. And sorry. Pls. repost. The comments on Groklaw are a huge part of what
makes this site valuable. I used to spend a lot more time surfing and now you
guys do it, and I can concentrate on researching the details, so it's a good
mix.
I am happy to let you know that someone has agreed to host Groklaw, so if
anybody wants to suggest better software, now is the time to do it, because I am
all ears. I particularly want better commenting functionality. The blog will
still be here, but there will be a groklaw.com also, to split the load and make
a smooth transition, at least for a while, until I get my sea legs.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
| http://www.phpbb.com/
moderate origninating posts, but allow others to comment on yours. Oh and of
course.. its Open Source
SD[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
| I'll take a whack at it and throw this out for your perusal:
www.phpbb.com
I don't know if that's going to suit your needs but its open-source so that's a
plus. As for other blogware, I'm only familiar with Blogger.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
| http
://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/62cbf9d13b40711e80256d880018c80f
SCO is now claiming they're going after an end-user ASAP, to "quicken it up,"
meaning the litigation. They're first going after a user who has all three of
AIX, Dynix, and Linux.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that their hand is being forced. It's
also predictable: there's very bad news abroad concerning their "theft" example,
so they make a lot of noise as a distraction.
Frank Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
| The lost comment: How much of the "tainted code", the 900K lines that uses the
allegedly infringing SMP, RCU and NUMA code is protected by #ifdefs so that it
can be removed by simply not configuring it in the kernel ?
I know that most of smp can be removed but not if any traces are left.
A kernel configured without these features would then contain no contested code
when linked an run.
So most one processor systems (no SMP) with standard intel memory configuration
(no NUMA) running normal apps (no RCU, its value is in low latency) using ext3
is not running any of the disputed code.
Having a unused copy of the stuff in the source tree cannot be a major crime !
Then we have the "DNA of UNIX" and advanced "UNIX development methods".
The old DNA of UNIX is in System7 (open sourced by SCO) and BSD, UNIX
development methods
is taught in school, the only new part is the size of adhoc networked
collaborative work,
this type of coopertion was there in the beginning of UNIX but on a smaller
scale on the original experimental networks ( MIT/UCB/ATT/DARP ... ... )
Still I believe SCO has no controlling rights to this stuff.
Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
| Frank Brickle: Do you think IBM could be so kind as to give me a copy of, and
license to AIX and Dynix? I've got the Linux - that's what I'm using to post
this - but I lack the other two for SCO to target me in that way.
I've also got a Caldera Free License to use UnixWare and OpenServer: "About
SCO's Main Contention" :
http://twiki.iwethe
y.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBM
I believe they term it "rubbing their noses in it" - that's what I want to
do.
I'm also sure that under NZ law, they would be ruled fraudulent extortionists
and dealt to in an appropriate fashion.
Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:51 AM EDT |
| Hi Dick,
> In response to your statements about "another programmer", the tack he took is
exactly how I got started,
> but I quickly found that the vast majority of references were, just as he
said, calls to the spinlock routine,
> as well as other calls to subroutines in the mainline smp/numa/rcu modules.
>
> Additionally, any source file that contains a reference to one of the mainline
routines must also include the
> appropriate ".h" include file so it can also reference the appropriate data
structures.
>
> It's absurd for SCO to count these lines as copyright violations, otherwise
everyone who ever wrote a paper or
> book would be in violation for using footnotes to refer to other
publications.
I agree with you 100%. I'm merely offering a suggestion for how SCO has been
deriving these figures. I don't agree with SCOs methodology. I just wanted to
figure out how SCO came up with such huge figures! The only way I could possibly
get into the same ballpark as SCO was by leaving common sense at the door.
> There were also many references so the words smp/rcu/numa in comments, a large
proportion of which were "This
> code is SMP safe". Those comments were inserted when a major SMP review of the
code base was done.
By searching for an underscore prefixing or postfixing the name I purposefully
avoided the majority of false positives from comments and fragments of words
(eg, "rcu" without the underscore would be found in "circular list").
> The bottom line was that only a human review of the code could give an
accurate count of the actual number
> of lines devoted to the SMP subsystems. Any other method will produce gross
inaccuracies.
I think we can safely agree that SCOs claims of "millions of lines of code" is a
gross inaccuracy ;-)
Another Programmer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:38 AM EDT |
| Wesley:
> Do you think IBM could be so kind as to give me a copy of, and license to AIX
and Dynix?
Possible but unlikely. If they gave it to you they'd have to destroy their other
copy.
Frank Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
| Another Programmer,
My apologies if I came off as as criticizing you.
Your method does indeed show the direction that SCO must have taken to come up
with the nonsense they're spewing.
My intent was to point out that there's only one analysis methodology that can
possibly provide the "correct" answer, and it ain't SCO's.
Dick Gingras - SCO
caro mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
source of sco's numbers. someone else in a link i can't recall noted that the
number of lines of code that sco is claiming correlate to the number of lines of
code contributed by unix license holders (ibm, sequent, sun, sgi, sco, etc).
kevin lyda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
