sco.com and caldera.com are down
Nucleon
caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
Life is like an analogy.
Larry Rosenman
Nucleon <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
I don't know why.
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: l...@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Jeff Liebermann
>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
I find that the www.sco.com server and one of the nameservers are
down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
servers that are up).
Both www.sco.com and www.caldera.com are on some kind of load
balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.
08/23/03 21:21:25 dig www.sco.com @ ns.calderasystems.com
Dig www.s...@ns.calderasystems.com (216.250.130.1) ...
Authoritative Answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for www.sco.com type=255 class=1
www.sco.com A (Address) 216.250.140.112 (down)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) nsca.sco.com (down)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) c7ns1.center7.com (up)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns.calderasystems.com (up)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns2.calderasystems.com (up)
ns.calderasystems.com A (Address) 216.250.130.1
ns2.calderasystems.com A (Address) 216.250.130.5
nsca.sco.com A (Address) 132.147.210.253
Since the web server is in the same IP block as the two working
nameservers, I can guess(tm) that only the web server is comatose and
that this is not a connectivity issue.
www.caldera.com (216.250.130.1) uses the same nameservers and sits in
the same IP class C block. No clue why both should decide to go
comatose at the same time unless it's the load balancer.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager je...@cruzio.com AE6KS
Larry Rosenman
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
>
>>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
>
>Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
>I find that the www.sco.com server and one of the nameservers are
>down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
>(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
>servers that are up).
>
>Both www.sco.com and www.caldera.com are on some kind of load
>balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.
are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
When the attack stops, they'll lift the block
at InterNAP.
LER
Scott
>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
;-) It's a real shame isn't it? Sad to see such a useful source of
lies and threats shutdown. It's especially strange after their
hilarious attempts to steal Linux from the open source comunity, lie
about their code being stolen (when all evidence points to them
contributing the code themselves), then in a final act of desperation,
attempt to claim the GPL is invalid, since copyright law prohibits
more than one copy of any software! Oh yes, wasn't their major
announcement at their "big" annual conference the fact they were going
to be including Samba 3.0.x in their OS'? That would be the
Open-source Samba, you know, covered by the GPL. Oh I almost forgot,
they also bundle a great many open source tools with their crummy
systems to hide the fact their own stuff stinks!
Too bad they no longer have any revenue left to put into making their
products usable or competitive, since everything is paid to second
rate lawfirms, trying to defend them as the most reviled company in
the World.
I honestly can't believe anyone is still using this company's
operating systems - let's look at the facts:
1) Their own directors selling shares as quickly as possible.
The only reason SCOX stock is high is due to the amount of
short-stock. Noone in their right mind would buy it.
2) they're infringing upon IBM patents (which luckily cover
ALL their product lines ;-)
3) The entire OS community hate them, and support for SCO
products is likely to be removed from many projects.
4) The directors are likely to face jail terms for their
recent defamation and threats sent out to Linux users. Oh
yes, and for the stock price manipulation.
5) Their own products stink (believe me, moving from
OpenServer to Linux is like travelling 20 years forward
through time!)
6) Why pay per-seat licencing for an outdated OS, when Linux
is free, faster, supports much more hardware and all the
same software (and more)? Oh, and you get the source code!
Personally I believe sco.com should remain down to save these cretins
from further humiliation. Every time Darl Greedy McBride opens his
mouth it's just another avalanche of utter shit pouring out.
To anyone still running SCO software, you have my deepest
sympathies...
Jeff Liebermann
<sc...@tiktok.demon.c.u.o.t.s.a> wrote:
> - let's look at the facts:
Let's check the facts.
> 1) Their own directors selling shares as quickly as possible.
> The only reason SCOX stock is high is due to the amount of
> short-stock. Noone in their right mind would buy it.
See:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/S/SCOX.html
There are as many options exercised as there are sales. The largest
sale was $261,000. Total insider sales was 1.7% of shares owned by
officers. As most of the sales were proceeded by options priced under
$2/share, I would be more than just tempted to sell when the stock
went to as high as $15/share (and then started to drop). Where is
your "selling shares as quickly as possible"?
> 2) they're infringing upon IBM patents (which luckily cover
> ALL their product lines ;-)
IBM is the worlds largest patent holder. They patent everything in
sight. It's almost impossible to do any kind of software without
locking horns with IBM. For example, XML for ecommerce is allegedly
patented by IBM.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2861528,00.html
Of course, IBM is being magnanimous that week and offered free
royalties to those that will recognize IBM's ownership of ebiz XML.
In the current legal pissing match with SCO, IBM has no reason to be
so nice, and is defending their software patents. Let's just say that
IBM picks its opponents carefully.
Informix:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2000/02/07/daily10.html
I'm not surprised that IBM would claim patent infringement as the
current issue would cast them as the victim should it precipitate a
judicial or legislative review of the validity of software patents.
> 3) The entire OS community hate them, and support for SCO
> products is likely to be removed from many projects.
I doubt it. However, future support in new products is likely to be
lacking.
> 4) The directors are likely to face jail terms for their
> recent defamation and threats sent out to Linux users. Oh
> yes, and for the stock price manipulation.
For what crime? It really depends on how many congress critters one
owns. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers still haven't been indicted by the
Justice Department. My guess is that they never will be. However,
the JD has indicted Martha Stuart (not for insider trading, but only
for covering up her insider trading). High profile proscecution is
based on politix and not the letter of the law.
> 5) Their own products stink (believe me, moving from
> OpenServer to Linux is like travelling 20 years forward
> through time!)
I've been using SCO products since Xenix 2.0. My guess that would be
about 1988. I've been tinkering with Linux since 1.1.13 which is
about 1994. I do not claim to be an expert on either OSR5 or Linux.
I have made money with OSR5 but have not been able to do as well with
Linux. I'll leave it to others to pass judgement on the quality of
the product as I'm not a programmist.
> 6) Why pay per-seat licencing for an outdated OS, when Linux
> is free, faster, supports much more hardware and all the
> same software (and more)? Oh, and you get the source code!
Yep. It's difficult to compete with a product that's free. However,
I don't drive the direction of my customers. I've moved a few servers
to Linux, but the greatest number of seats (i.e. licensed users) seems
to be blundering in the direction of various Windoze products, which
is anything but free.
>Personally I believe sco.com should remain down to save these cretins
>from further humiliation. Every time Darl Greedy McBride opens his
>mouth it's just another avalanche of utter shit pouring out.
So much for free speech. Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
of SCO's point of view. I probably shouldn't have scribbled this
message. However, I take a dim view of warped facts and thought some
comments might be useful.
>To anyone still running SCO software, you have my deepest
>sympathies...
Thank you. I appreciate your concern.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Brian K. White
"Larry Rosenman" <l...@lerctr.org> wrote in message
news:bi9h2d$7dj$1...@lerami.lerctr.org...
> In article <8ffgkvg0j5fv19gt0...@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
> >>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
> >>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
> >
> >Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
> >I find that the www.sco.com server and one of the nameservers are
> >down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
> >(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
> >servers that are up).
> >
> >Both www.sco.com and www.caldera.com are on some kind of load
> >balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.
> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>
> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block
> at InterNAP.
>
> LER
I would blame this on sco's management.
Obviously you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to go
so incredibly far out of your way to antagonize a planet full of fresh
young linux whiz-kid hackers just itching for something to flex their
muscles on.
Shrewd.
It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't matter
if you are 'right'"
--
Brian K. White -- br...@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
Nucleon
> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>
> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>
> LER
That's interesting, but can anyone confirm it? With some web searching, I
can only find info about the DDoS on May 2, which SCO was quick to blame
on Linux users. If there were another one, especially one that has
continued for at least two days, wouldn't we have heard about it in the
news?
It's quiet. Too quiet.
Richard Rasker
[snip]
>> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP
>> sites are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>>
>> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>>
>> LER
>
> I would blame this on sco's management.
>
> Obviously you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to
> go so incredibly far out of your way to antagonize a planet full of
> fresh young linux whiz-kid hackers just itching for something to flex
> their muscles on.
>
> Shrewd.
>
> It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
> Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
> planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
> the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't
> matter if you are 'right'"
Understandable though it may be, there's nothing shrewd about this DOS
attack - it's blemishing the (so far) unspoilt reputation of sensibility
of the Open Source community. In Eric Raymond's words at
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082400126NWCYLL:
"With whatever authority I have, I ask that the DOS attack cease
immediately. Please stand down now. We have better ways to win this fight.
There are at least three reasons running a denial-of-service against SCO
is a bad idea:
First: We're the good guys. But that doesn't matter if we aren't seen to
be the good guys. We cannot fight our war using vandalism and trespass and
the suppression of speech, or SCO will paint us as crackers and maybe win.
Let's keep the moral high ground here. Second: We have other tools that
are more powerful. We have an astonishingly strong set of facts on our
side. SCO has been caught in multiple lies, wholesale IP violations, and
defamatory statements. The way to destroy them is with legal weapons. We
can do that. Third: SCO is its own worst enemy. Every time its
spokespeople open their mouths, they dig their company's grave a little
deeper. Consider their statements at SCOforum and what followed. We're in
an even stronger position than we were three days ago."
In other words: give 'em enough rope to hang themselves. As recent events
suggest, SCO is perfectly capable of orchestrating it's own well-deserved
demise. The more utter bogus they launch into the world, the faster this
realm of greed, slander and paranoia can be burnt to the ground, ploughed
over and forever buried - by legal means that is. This DOS attack is
probably the best thing that could happen to them now, so it's vital that
it stops as soon as possible.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Brian K. White
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:stohkvojkohm63cs1...@4ax.com...
>
> [...] Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
> actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
> and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
> company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
> have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
> lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
>
That's rather my position.
I shudder at the thought that I may have to start shipping new systems on
linux.
Linux is great. Linux is fun. Linux is not an OS I want to have to support
in the context where I install osr5. I need to be able to install it, and
walk away from it and come back 3 years later when the customers hardware
gives out or they move or something, and I need my co-workers to be able
to do basic support for all the customers stretching over the years the
company has been in business and installing servers with our app on it.
Every time I turn around there is some new hack that gets any exposed box
rootkitted and every few months it changes so much there is no hope of
developing a common set of knowledge that allows a person to support boxes
of various ages stretching over several years. I *like* that not very much
has changed between 5.0.4 and 5.0.7. and what has changed has mostly not
broken backwards compatibility with any install-scripts or basic sysadmin
knowledge. If you knew how to restart the print spooler on Xenix, you
still do on 5.0.7. That is valueable. That is EXTREMELY valuable. The
linux kiddies and other short-sighted people don't understand that, but I
do and my customers are better off for it. Sure, I personally can handle
the changes in linux and actually could support a spectrum of boxes of
different ages, but I'm the only one in my company who could because it is
my pleasure to keep up with stuff like that and supporting the OS's is my
special focus. With sco *everyone* but the receptionist in the company
could do at least basic support. They learned some basic commands verbatim
years ago, and they still apply. They read commands out of a "tricks"
database that were put in years ago, and they still apply. For linux that
database would have to have pages of "or it might be like this, or it
might be like that, or if this file exists then you do it this other
way..." for every damned item. Either that or the whole thing get chucked
and replaced with one answer "get brian"
That would be good for all those linux-knowledgeable people out there who
could get nice jobs as consultants and support staff, but it would NOT be
good for customers who never needed that before. Moving to Linux in
certain environments is a Huge Advance Backwards.
Bill Campbell
....
>It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
>Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
>planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
>the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't matter
>if you are 'right'"
This relates to the adage relating to getting into pissing contests with
newspapers. It doesn't pay when your opponent buys ink by the barrel.
The SCO management actions are more akin to going into a battle of wits
unarmed. McBride's latest rants on IBM's financing the opposition sound
like a ``B'' movie villain.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc.
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won'ttake an interest in you. -- Pericles
Bill Campbell
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:47:07 +0100, Scott
><sc...@tiktok.demon.c.u.o.t.s.a> wrote:
>
>> - let's look at the facts:
>
>Let's check the facts.
>
>> 1) Their own directors selling shares as quickly as possible.
>> The only reason SCOX stock is high is due to the amount of
>> short-stock. Noone in their right mind would buy it.
>
>See:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/t/S/SCOX.html
>There are as many options exercised as there are sales. The largest
>sale was $261,000. Total insider sales was 1.7% of shares owned by
>officers. As most of the sales were proceeded by options priced under
>$2/share, I would be more than just tempted to sell when the stock
>went to as high as $15/share (and then started to drop). Where is
>your "selling shares as quickly as possible"?
Certainly I dumped the SCO stock I had purchased at the original IPO
recently (only losing about 80% of my original investment :-).
...
>> 3) The entire OS community hate them, and support for SCO
>> products is likely to be removed from many projects.
>
>I doubt it. However, future support in new products is likely to be
>lacking.
Support for the current products hasn't been what I would call stellar.
The way things are going now, I doubt that SCO will be around long enough
to bring any new products to market, and even if they do, they've managed
to thoroughly piss off many potential customers and VARs.
...
>> 5) Their own products stink (believe me, moving from
>> OpenServer to Linux is like travelling 20 years forward
>> through time!)
>
>I've been using SCO products since Xenix 2.0. My guess that would be
>about 1988. I've been tinkering with Linux since 1.1.13 which is
>about 1994. I do not claim to be an expert on either OSR5 or Linux.
>I have made money with OSR5 but have not been able to do as well with
>Linux. I'll leave it to others to pass judgement on the quality of
>the product as I'm not a programmist.
I beat Jeff by a bit having started on the Tandy 4000 running Xenix in
1987, moving from Xenix on the Tandy Model 16/6000s. We still support
several customers running OSR5, but it's been quite a while since we sold
anything but upgrades to existing customers who were locked into
applications that only run on OSR5. Most of our customers have been moved
to Linux (originally Caldera, now SuSE), the RealWorld users going to
APPGEN, and others like SYSPRO and FilePro now have native Linux support.
We have never made significant money on the OS sales, but make it on
service and support. We're getting a lot more new Linux customers now that
we ever did with SCO, now mostly from businesses running from the Microsoft
virii. We're doing a mix of Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X (Apple). The few
OSR5 customers we have will probably have to move to other platforms over
the next year or so because there won't be any support for the applications
they're running.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``Liberals love to say things like, 'We're just asking everyone to pay
their fair share.' But government is not about asking. It is about telling.
The difference is fundamental. It is the difference between making love and
being raped, between working for a living and being a slave.''
Dr. Thomas Sowell, Forbes, July 1994
Bill Campbell
>
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
>news:stohkvojkohm63cs1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [...] Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
>> actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
>> and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
>> company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
>> have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
>> lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
>> of SCO's point of view. [...]
>>
>
>That's rather my position.
>I shudder at the thought that I may have to start shipping new systems on
>linux.
>
>Linux is great. Linux is fun. Linux is not an OS I want to have to support
>in the context where I install osr5. I need to be able to install it, and
>walk away from it and come back 3 years later when the customers hardware
>gives out or they move or something, and I need my co-workers to be able
>to do basic support for all the customers stretching over the years the
>company has been in business and installing servers with our app on it.
Funny, I've been doing that on Linux for years now. Our first mission-
critical Linux install was in September 1997. That machine ran six months
before its first reboot when a janitor knocked the power cord out. We've
had Linux running here, and at ISPs for years without their being cracked
or requiring constant maintenance. Linux uptimes, even at busy ISPs, is
generally a function of power outages or equipment moves, not software
problems.
Of course we don't install any Linux system without first going through it
to tighten security and replace vulnerable programs like sendmail and BIND
with secure alternatives. We do the same thing on OSR5, but it takes a lot
more effort there than on Linux or FreeBSD. I don't trust any vendor's
system out of the box, and have found major security holes in Solaris, OSR
5 (FCS with 777 permissions on ``/'' and all the ``/opt'' directories),
Linux, etc. The SuSE 8.[12] releases come with most services turned off by
default, and others listening only on the 127.0.0.1 localhost interface
(e.g. postfix) which minimizes the dangers even on default installations.
I do agree that Linux developers have a nasty habit of not worrying about
backwards compatibility, and have said so on many occassions. On the other
hand, the time necessary to keep up to speed is far less that that
necessary to keep up with the continual flood of Microsoft holes and
patches.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``Our Foreign dealings are an Open Book, generally a Check Book.''
Will Rogers
Whoever
> Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
> caldera.com.
Well, www.scosource.com is up!
>
>
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Certainly I dumped the SCO stock I had purchased at the original IPO
>recently (only losing about 80% of my original investment :-).
I was talking about insider trading. Having officers dump 1.7% of
their total holdings is not (in my opinion) massive selling.
I dunno if you would have done any better with the Linux stocks.
Here's Red Hat compared to NASDAQ.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=&k=c1&t=5y&s=rhat&a=v&p=s&l=off&z=m&q=l&y=on
After the initial lunacy died down, and after Red Hat non-cleverly
precipitated a stock split because they though the price would
continue to soar, the stock instantly died. After that, RHAT did
about the same as the NASDAQ averages. If I ignore the inital lunacy
and just display the last two years, SCOX and RHAT were tracking each
other until a few months *BEFORE* SCO decided to sue IBM.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=rhat&k=c1&t=2y&s=scox&a=v&p=s&l=off&z=m&q=l&y=on
The suit against IBM was announced in late March. However, note that
SCOX stock started climbing relative to RHAT and the NADAQ in early
February, 2 months before the suit was announced. Hmmmm...
>I beat Jeff by a bit having started on the Tandy 4000 running Xenix in
>1987, moving from Xenix on the Tandy Model 16/6000s.
Bah-humbug. I was destroying my fathers Altos 486 and later 986
running MS Xenix 3.0 and AOS (Altos Open Office) scribbled in Business
Basic back around 1984 or 1985. I had no idea what I was doing but
that doesn't count because nobody else did either.
>We're doing a mix of Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X (Apple). The few
>OSR5 customers we have will probably have to move to other platforms over
>the next year or so because there won't be any support for the applications
>they're running.
Most of my new stuff is SUSE 8.2 and Windoze 2000 server. However, I
don't get to chose the OS. The client boxes arrive pre-infected with
XP. It's whatever the vertical market vendor wants or whatever the
box sellers are bundling.
Larry Rosenman
>
>> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
>> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>>
>> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>>
>> LER
>
>That's interesting, but can anyone confirm it? With some web searching, I
>can only find info about the DDoS on May 2, which SCO was quick to blame
>on Linux users. If there were another one, especially one that has
>continued for at least two days, wouldn't we have heard about it in the
>news?
>
>It's quiet. Too quiet.
write his name down) in the ViaWest NOC.
I don't have enough traffic at the ISP I work for to tell what's going on.
The ViaWest folks have apparently put the lid on, as I tried to verify
my post earlier today for someone, and couldn't get information.
The traceroute I ran acts like an ACL or NULL ROUTE or combination
of the two. (I'm a network engineer by trade, and the person that
does these blocks for us).
SO, the evidence is an ACL/NULL route for the /24 that the SCO/Caldera
web/FTP sites live in. the reason can't be 100% verified because
ViaWest can't say to a NON-Customer what's going on (standard policy).
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:20:02 -0400, Brian K. White wrote:
>[snip]
>>> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP
>>> sites are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>>>
>>> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>>>
>>> LER
>>
>> I would blame this on sco's management.
>>
>> Obviously you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to
>> go so incredibly far out of your way to antagonize a planet full of
>> fresh young linux whiz-kid hackers just itching for something to flex
>> their muscles on.
>>
>> Shrewd.
>>
>> It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
>> Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
>> planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
>> the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't
>> matter if you are 'right'"
>Understandable though it may be, there's nothing shrewd about this DOS
>attack - it's blemishing the (so far) unspoilt reputation of sensibility
>of the Open Source community. In Eric Raymond's words at
>http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082400126NWCYLL:
>"With whatever authority I have, I ask that the DOS attack cease
>immediately. Please stand down now. We have better ways to win this fight.
All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
to...@aplawrence.com
>So much for free speech. Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
>actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
>and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
>company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
>have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
>lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
>of SCO's point of view. I probably shouldn't have scribbled this
>message. However, I take a dim view of warped facts and thought some
>comments might be useful.
Your comments were worth writing.
I haven't kept my big mouth shut and never will. In spite of
being very careful to avoid it, most of the Linux dolts have
seen me as defending SCO. That's so stupid that I can't say
any more about it without getting angry and spouting nasties
again.
I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
the worst characteristics of a mob.
This DOS attack just confirms all of that.
fLameDogg
> I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
> have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
> filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
> the worst characteristics of a mob.
>
> This DOS attack just confirms all of that.
Which is painted the "larger Linux community" with that single broad brush.
Nice.
--
fD
Bill Campbell
...
>
>All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
>intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>
>Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
Cute Tony. You're painting with a very broad brush there. The slashdot
crowd is hardly ``the linux community''.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``Never do your enemy a minor injury.''
- Machiavelli
Ian Wilson
>
> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>
Syllogism:
1) The intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is
incredibly low.
2) Tony is a member of the Linux community.
3) ... ;-)
Frankly, I don't think you can reliably prove anything by reading
Slashdot for a week. Except maybe how to turn your brain to mush.
--
Ian Wilson.
Wayne M Jackson
> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
I somehow differ in that opinion, as /. can hardly be used as a reference
for determining demographics within the Linux community.
Newsgroup postings would be far more accurate in that determination.
Though, I have lost all interest in /. some time back because of the
cretins.
> Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
That assumes /dev/ears is even simlinks to /dev/head/leftear and
/dev/head/righteear which from past experience has shown to be linked to
/dev/wall/brick
Stuart J. Browne
"Ian Wilson" <scob...@infotop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bidovm$3e4$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> >
> > All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> > intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly
low.
> >
>
>
> Syllogism:
>
> 1) The intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is
> incredibly low.
... some of the most intelligent people I know are of the Linux community
... It's the script-kiddies who have little or no intelligence/maturity,
wanting only to cause pain/disruption to those around them.
> 2) Tony is a member of the Linux community.
As are most of us. :P
> 3) ... ;-)
>
> Frankly, I don't think you can reliably prove anything by reading
> Slashdot for a week. Except maybe how to turn your brain to mush.
Now this is a comment I can agree with!
Reading SlashDot for a day is enough to make you feel 'dumber'. The amount
of ego flowing through that site is astronomical.
bkx
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003, to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>...
>>
>>All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
>>intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>>
>>Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
>Cute Tony. You're painting with a very broad brush there. The slashdot
>crowd is hardly ``the linux community''.
Oh of course not. I think they often represent the very worst of it
though.
Obviously intelligent people like ESR abhor this sort of foolishness.
to...@aplawrence.com
My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been spouting
nastygrams about SCO long before there was any indication that the
barbs were deserved.
I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure,
but none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled
for boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the
claims were legit.
OK, as I said, it sure looks like they are not legit. But being
right for the wrong reason doesn't make me respect 'em any more.
Interesting that I haven't seen a peep in Slashdot about this..
to...@aplawrence.com
>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>
>> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
>> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>>
>Syllogism:
>1) The intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is
>incredibly low.
>2) Tony is a member of the Linux community.
>3) ... ;-)
Tony is just barely smart enough to know how dumb he is.
I'm not overly smart, Ian, and have don't claim to be. I'm a high
school dropout, can't code worth a damn, and have an awful
time understanding things people like you just seem to swallow
like warm milk. My life has been one long struggle, and in
some ways still is. I probably have to put a lot more effort
in than most here do. That's OK, tortoise and the hare and all
that..
>Frankly, I don't think you can reliably prove anything by reading
>Slashdot for a week. Except maybe how to turn your brain to mush.
Who's trying to prove? I just made a comment. Perhaps it
would have been better to say "of the Slashdot Linux community",
but I never did do well in English Composition :-)
fLameDogg
> fLameDogg <flam...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>to...@aplawrence.com wrote in news:bicu94$b73$3...@pcls4.std.com:
>
>>> I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
>>> have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
>>> filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
>>> the worst characteristics of a mob.
>>>
>>> This DOS attack just confirms all of that.
>
>>Which is painted the "larger Linux community" with that single broad brush.
>>Nice.
>
> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been spouting
> nastygrams about SCO long before there was any indication that the
> barbs were deserved.
I won't even try to pretend that there hasn't been an awful lot of
nastiness spouted--from both directions, IMHO.
> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure,
> but none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled
> for boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the
> claims were legit.
I chalk a lot of that up to emotional reaction. Nobody wants to think
their pet OS is chock-full of stolen "IP". From my POV, though, SCO has
been full of it from day one. Interesting how they compare Linux to a
"bicycle" in their original complaint against IBM, yet even now Netcraft
shows www.sco.com running "Apache on Linux". Hmpfh.
SCO deserves something, it's very likely, but not DoS. That was
just stupid, not helpful to any "cause" against SCO.
> OK, as I said, it sure looks like they are not legit. But being
> right for the wrong reason doesn't make me respect 'em any more.
"'em" being what? The larger Linux community? Any passing penguin you
happen to see? Or just the number of Linux-using numbnuts which have
attracted your disdain?
I know a few decent people who use Linux, and I'm inclined to believe
there are more. I can't deny, though, the quasi-religious fervor that
seems to surround Linux. Sometimes it's kind of exciting, and sometimes
a bit disturbing, but mostly it's just interesting to contemplate.
> Interesting that I haven't seen a peep in Slashdot about this..
I couldn't say. I haven't looked at /. in weeks.
--
fD
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 at 20:06 GMT,
>to...@aplawrence.com <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been spouting
>> nastygrams about SCO long before there was any indication that the
>> barbs were deserved.
>I won't even try to pretend that there hasn't been an awful lot of
>nastiness spouted--from both directions, IMHO.
>> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure,
>> but none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled
>> for boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the
>> claims were legit.
>I chalk a lot of that up to emotional reaction. Nobody wants to think
>their pet OS is chock-full of stolen "IP". From my POV, though, SCO has
>been full of it from day one. Interesting how they compare Linux to a
>"bicycle" in their original complaint against IBM, yet even now Netcraft
>shows www.sco.com running "Apache on Linux". Hmpfh.
I can't argue that. SCO (as a corporate entity) has been pretty dumb
about Linux and Open Source right along. They had their Skunkworks
for making sopme of it available, but that was obviously a bastard
child project that got little respect and insufficient resources.
Always out of date, and important stuff took forever to get there.
The latest 5.0.7 does have more open source stuff in it though.
But then SCO, exhibiting typical corporate fear of anything that
threatens profit, slammed Linux. In a really brilliant move, they also
discontinued their own "free" non-commercial use license. That
helps immensely (not).
>SCO deserves something, it's very likely, but not DoS. That was
>just stupid, not helpful to any "cause" against SCO.
>> OK, as I said, it sure looks like they are not legit. But being
>> right for the wrong reason doesn't make me respect 'em any more.
>"'em" being what? The larger Linux community? Any passing penguin you
>happen to see? Or just the number of Linux-using numbnuts which have
>attracted your disdain?
OK, OK. I should have said "the Linux community on Slashdot", and
even that would include folks who don't deserve it.
>I know a few decent people who use Linux, and I'm inclined to believe
>there are more. I can't deny, though, the quasi-religious fervor that
>seems to surround Linux. Sometimes it's kind of exciting, and sometimes
>a bit disturbing, but mostly it's just interesting to contemplate.
Well, I find it disturbing whether it's directed to gods, diet fads,
or operating systems. Nothing much to be done about that, though:
people are what they are.
Stuart Marshall
> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
No.
slashdot community != linux community.
Of the slashdot community, in general I have to say I agree with you.
The Linux community, just like most others has idiots amongst it.
> Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
When you have a group as large as the Linux community you're always
going to have idiots amongst it - sadly.
Put it this way, the SCO community has its share of idiots -- oh.. I
forgot, that's the SCO management ;-)
Regards,
Stuart.
to...@aplawrence.com
>> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
>> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>No.
>slashdot community != linux community.
Yes. I was careless in that regard.
>Of the slashdot community, in general I have to say I agree with you.
>The Linux community, just like most others has idiots amongst it.
>> Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.
>When you have a group as large as the Linux community you're always
>going to have idiots amongst it - sadly.
>Put it this way, the SCO community has its share of idiots -- oh.. I
>forgot, that's the SCO management ;-)
No argument there, unfortunately.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
>Stuart.
Stuart Marshall
Hi Tony.
>>slashdot community != linux community.
>
> Yes. I was careless in that regard.
Thanks for stating that (you didn't have to...), but it's
an easy "mistake" to make.
>>Of the slashdot community, in general I have to say I agree with you.
>
>>The Linux community, just like most others has idiots amongst it.
Agreed.
>>Put it this way, the SCO community has its share of idiots -- oh.. I
>>forgot, that's the SCO management ;-)
>
> No argument there, unfortunately.
Again I agree. I've followed with interest your comments on this matter,
and to be honest I've found them very balanced.
At this moment in time SCO appear to be stupid, at best. Unfortunately
'attacking' them using pathetic DOS attacks actually does more harm
than good, and is probably exactly what SCO want to happen.
Like many others I'd just like to see the /whole/ evidence SCO seem
so convinced they have; only then can we move forwards...
Regards,
Stuart.
Bill Campbell
...
>At this moment in time SCO appear to be stupid, at best. Unfortunately
>'attacking' them using pathetic DOS attacks actually does more harm
>than good, and is probably exactly what SCO want to happen.
Is there any real evidence that the DDoS attacks actually occurred or is
this yet another idiotic ploy of SCO's?
I know some folks who get hit by serious and real DDoS attacks from time to
time (e.g. spamhaus.org and some of RFG's open proxy listing servers), and
they have always managed to work around them one way or another, often by
enlisting help from friends and supporters -- I forgot, SCO's managed to
alienate any they had, and are left only with land sharks.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``Freedom from prices is freedom from responsibility. You can simply pass
laws, using the magic wand of government to satisfy your own desires at
unspecified costs to be paid by others.'' -- Thomas Sowell Aug 2000
fLameDogg
> fLameDogg <flam...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>"'em" being what? The larger Linux community? Any passing penguin you
>>happen to see? Or just the number of Linux-using numbnuts which have
>>attracted your disdain?
>
> OK, OK. I should have said "the Linux community on Slashdot", and
> even that would include folks who don't deserve it.
I guess it was always evident you didn't mean to cast aspersion on every
single Linux user, unless you have some self-image issues <g>
>>I know a few decent people who use Linux, and I'm inclined to believe
>>there are more. I can't deny, though, the quasi-religious fervor that
>>seems to surround Linux. Sometimes it's kind of exciting, and sometimes
>>a bit disturbing, but mostly it's just interesting to contemplate.
>
> Well, I find it disturbing whether it's directed to gods, diet fads,
> or operating systems. Nothing much to be done about that, though:
> people are what they are.
Nod.
--
fD
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Tue, Aug 26, 2003, Stuart Marshall wrote:
>...
>>At this moment in time SCO appear to be stupid, at best. Unfortunately
>>'attacking' them using pathetic DOS attacks actually does more harm
>>than good, and is probably exactly what SCO want to happen.
>Is there any real evidence that the DDoS attacks actually occurred or is
>this yet another idiotic ploy of SCO's?
I dunno. But I doubt ESR would have said what he did otherwise.
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
~
Brian
> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been
> spouting nastygrams about SCO long before there was any
> indication that the barbs were deserved.
What?
Let me get this straight. You are pissed at the Linux people who supported
their community by being in opposition to SCO because they were doing it
without justification?
Let me set you straight Anthony, I knew SCO was full of shit the minute they
refused to identify the offending code in the Linux kernel - I knew it that
very second!
You see, I know something about IP law and lawsuits. The first requirement
of a plaintiff is to mitigate damages by identifying the code that
infringes their rights in order to give the plaintiff full opporunity to
correct the problem. The next step if the plaintiff refuses to stop is to
file a motion for a temporary interlocutory injunction from continued
infringement.
In order for a motion for an temporary interlocutory injunction to succeed,
plaintiff must have a prima facia case - clear ownership of the copyright,
clear case of plaintiff using the copyright material in an unauthorized
manner and proof of damages beyond normal during litigation.
A motion can be filed and heard in less than 30 days and a decision can
generally be heard from the bench in less than a week.
WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?
I'll tell you what:
(1) The SCO Group does not have clear ownership of the code in System V
as a result of the BSD settlement.
(2) The SCO Group has failed to show a single line of encumbered code
therefore there is no clear case of unauthorised use.
(3) The SCO Group can't show proof of damages because SCO has been a loser
for at least 5 years and has been passed around like a turd from one owner
to another for at least that long - nobody has made money owning SCO except
perhaps the channel.
So, there was no debate in my mind that The SCO Group was Full Of Shit!
> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the
> censure, but none of them knew that until just recently.
Total Bullshit!
You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
There are lots of instances of code being rejected because of uncertain
copyright pedigree and some code was actually removed because of
conflicting license terms between the GPL and owner of donated code.
You apparently didn't know this but were willing to piss and moan about the
great unwashed Linux community.
The funny thing is, no mention of this humiliating development has made it
to your SCO/Linux web page. What's up with that?
So Anthony, allow me to point to your behavior and accuse you of being just
another ignorant unwashed SCO fan boy bigot whose ship is sinking. I am
sorry SCO crapped all over your favorite Unix but it has been a sinking
ship for years now.
Linux is on the fast track to taking over your marketshare with a superior
product and a less expensive business model. While it is true many
applications still exist for the SCO brands of Unix, there are still
deployers of DOS applications (our local multiplex theatre runs it's ticket
video kiosks on DOS 6), that is the past.
Perhaps it is time to pull your head out of your ass and deal with it.
One last thought, Slashdot is not the flagship of the Linux community. It is
an open forum where anyone with anything to say has a venue. Now it is true
some of the comments may not come up to your high standards of informed
opinion but as your behavior has illustrated, you are not exactly that well
informed either.
You are in fact attacking others for being as uninformed and pig-ignorant as
you yourself are.
How about that?
Best regards,
Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer
to...@aplawrence.com
>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been
>> spouting nastygrams about SCO long before there was any
>> indication that the barbs were deserved.
>What?
>Let me get this straight. You are pissed at the Linux people who supported
>their community by being in opposition to SCO because they were doing it
>without justification?
Yes.
>Let me set you straight Anthony, I knew SCO was full of shit the minute they
>refused to identify the offending code in the Linux kernel - I knew it that
>very second!
No. You may have suspected it, but you couldn't know.
.. interesting legal stuff deleted ..
>I'll tell you what:
>(1) The SCO Group does not have clear ownership of the code in System V
>as a result of the BSD settlement.
>(2) The SCO Group has failed to show a single line of encumbered code
>therefore there is no clear case of unauthorised use.
>(3) The SCO Group can't show proof of damages because SCO has been a loser
>for at least 5 years and has been passed around like a turd from one owner
>to another for at least that long - nobody has made money owning SCO except
>perhaps the channel.
>So, there was no debate in my mind that The SCO Group was Full Of Shit!
>> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the
>> censure, but none of them knew that until just recently.
>Total Bullshit!
>You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
>maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
>it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
anything here.
>The funny thing is, no mention of this humiliating development has made it
>to your SCO/Linux web page. What's up with that?
Umm,, wrong, there are several mentions of it.
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B399.html Aug 21
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B395.html Aug 19
>So Anthony, allow me to point to your behavior and accuse you of being just
>another ignorant unwashed SCO fan boy bigot whose ship is sinking. I am
>sorry SCO crapped all over your favorite Unix but it has been a sinking
>ship for years now.
Not my favorite Unix :-). Never was. Trust me, I've been watching this
"ship" drive itself over rocks for years, and have been moving on
as fast as I can.
>Linux is on the fast track to taking over your marketshare with a superior
>product and a less expensive business model. While it is true many
Most of my business nowadays is !~ /SCO/i;
Any SCO systems that CAN move to Linux, I've moved. I'm not as
dumb as I look.
Nucleon
> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure, but
> none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled for
> boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the claims
> were legit.
Initially, the reason we were angry was that we were frustrated. SCO had
claimed Linux code was infringing. We wanted it out, but SCO wouldn't
tell us what it was. The overriding feeling was complete frustration.
Then SCO said they wanted the code to stay in. The only logical reason
for this was that they wanted to collect money from Linux users for the
use of Linux as a whole. This later turned out to be the case. But the
users, and especially the contributors, had done so with the belief that
Linux would remain free, and now SCO was attempting to commandeer Linux.
We never wanted to steal code. When SCO claimed we had, we wanted the
code removed and the shady contributor crucified, so Linux could remain
free. But it became increasingly evident that SCO was bent on taking
Linux for itself. They weren't merely protecting their IP, they were
trying to use it to steal all of Linux.
Besides that, to an increasing extent, SCO was leading a PR campaign
against Linux in particular and open source software in general, and
making wild claims about the GPL. The initial filings had jabs against
Linux, like the whole "bike" thing. More recently, SCO has maligned
distributors who don't offer indemnification, despite the fact that it
wouldn't be necessary if not for SCO. You can't deny that we were
attacked.
My point is that regardless of the legitimacy of SCO's claims, they
deserved our scorn from day one. If SCO found some of their code in
Linux, they should have written linux-...@vger.org, and it would have
been gone within the week. If SCO wanted payback, they should sue whoever
contributed the code. If IBM contributed the code, they should sue IBM.
That much was justified. But not disclosing the code was not justified.
Not allowing their code to be separated from Linux was not justified.
Claiming that the whole of Linux is an unauthorized derivative was not
justified. Threatening users with legal action unless they buy a license
was not justified. Launching a massive dishonest smear campaign was not
justified. Valid claims or not, SCO is and was way out of line.
I frankly have a bit of difficulty understanding how you don't see this,
but hopefully that sheds a bit of light on the Linux community's feelings.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
War not make one great.
-- Yoda
Larry
> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
>
> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
> anything here.
Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
looking for stuff like this.
to...@aplawrence.com
Whoever
> Larry <lsc...@dlptech.com> wrote:
> >> >You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
> >> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
> >> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
> >>
> >> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
> >> anything here.
>
> >Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
> >the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
> >though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
> >looking for stuff like this.
>
> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
Tony,
Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
Most egregious is the it implicit belief of SCO's claim that some of SCO's
code has been illegally included in the Linux kernel. Despite the
debunking of SCO's "proof" and despite the unbelieveable claims from SCO
about the number of "their" code in the kernel, the author harps on about
problems with the Kernel development model.
It seems to think that Linux and free software suppporters are outraged at
SCO defending SCO's copyright. Public statements from Linus and others
make it clear that they do not condone copyright violations and
would immediately remove any code that can be shown to be in
violation of copyrights.
Another glaring problem is that it seems to completely ignore the
possiblity of code being copied the other way in violation of copyrights.
What process does SCO have to prevent copyright violations? Given the
suggestion that the code they showed at the Forum was BSD copde that had
been copied illegally (by removing the BSD copyright statements), perhaps
SCO's process needs investigating.
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Larry <lsc...@dlptech.com> wrote:
>> >> >You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
>> >> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
>> >> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
>> >>
>> >> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
>> >> anything here.
>>
>> >Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
>> >the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
>> >though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
>> >looking for stuff like this.
>>
>> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
>Tony,
>Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
>has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
>commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
>I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
article.
If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.
>Most egregious is the it implicit belief of SCO's claim that some of SCO's
>code has been illegally included in the Linux kernel. Despite the
>debunking of SCO's "proof" and despite the unbelieveable claims from SCO
>about the number of "their" code in the kernel, the author harps on about
>problems with the Kernel development model.
The problems are real, and I'm not sure there is any real solution.
I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
who worked there COULD even know it was copied.
This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
is not.
My feeling is that we have erred in allowing copyrights and patents
on the expression of ideas, the "look and feel", to start with, but
again that's outside of this discussion also.
>It seems to think that Linux and free software suppporters are outraged at
>SCO defending SCO's copyright. Public statements from Linus and others
>make it clear that they do not condone copyright violations and
>would immediately remove any code that can be shown to be in
>violation of copyrights.
Sure. IF THEY KNEW. I do think it's beyond incredible that
SCO is playing hide and seek with this supposedly stolen code,
and these games of "we're showing the code" "oh THAT wasn't the
code" are disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that this
is a problem. This is a real problem whether or not SCO has
anything in their pocket or not.
>Another glaring problem is that it seems to completely ignore the
>possiblity of code being copied the other way in violation of copyrights.
>What process does SCO have to prevent copyright violations? Given the
>suggestion that the code they showed at the Forum was BSD copde that had
>been copied illegally (by removing the BSD copyright statements), perhaps
>SCO's process needs investigating.
They may be very guilty there, and that's pretty interesting too,
but it doesn't negate the problem Linux has with this issue.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
"/home/dacha/apl/.article.14822452" 89 lines, 4342 characters
Nucleon
> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
I'm repeating here the comment I submitted about that article (no reply
yet), which represents my biggest problem with it:
I believe the argument that "There is no formal mechanism for ensuring
that the developers are not submitting code which does not belong to
them," an argument originated by Microsoft, reiterated by SCO, and
repeated by you, sets a double standard for the open source community.
Closed source software companies have no process either, because such a
process would be impossible. It is in fact much more likely that closed
source software companies use code they don't own, because in a company,
there isn't even "unstructured peer review," and therefore there is little
chance of being caught.
Consider the claim, "I wrote this code." If you don't trust the person
who says it, it's impossible to prove he did, without access to all other
code ever written. Since nobody has such access, the only solution is to
only accept code from people whom you trust, and who are liable for any
fraudulent copyright claims they make. This is exactly what the open
source community does.
If you must complain about the lack of a verification process, you should
compare it to the similar lack in closed source, and moreover, you should
enlighten us about what form such a process should take.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
The Congress shall have Power... TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Whoever
> Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
>
> >Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
> >has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
> >commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
> >I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
>
> Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
> article.
I'm afraid that you are so biased, you can't even see your own bias!
Calling me an idiot does not change anything. Did anyone ever tell you
that you can make an argument without resorting to insults?
> If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
>
> to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.
What makes you think there is no process to getting code included in the
Linux kernel or a GNU utility? There are processes and those processes
provide some level of protection against copyright violations. I say
"some" because it is clearly impossible to be 100% sure.
>
> The problems are real,
Are they? So far, based on published evidence, there are no copyright
violations in the Linux kernel. So far, the only known copyright
violations are in the closed source software.
> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
> Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
> the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
> who worked there COULD even know it was copied.
>
> This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
> is not.
So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
source projects? If so, why?
>
> My feeling is that we have erred in allowing copyrights and patents
> on the expression of ideas, the "look and feel",
So you feel that companies should be able to take any source code and
include it in their software, despite what the authors want?
>
> Sure. IF THEY KNEW. I do think it's beyond incredible that
> SCO is playing hide and seek with this supposedly stolen code,
> and these games of "we're showing the code" "oh THAT wasn't the
> code" are disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that this
> is a problem. This is a real problem whether or not SCO has
> anything in their pocket or not.
All it shows is that SCO's management has NO credibility. The question is,
when you hear a stream of lies from someone, when do you stop believing
ANYTHING that they have to say?
Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?
Ian Wilson
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph/?site=www.sco.com
Maybe its only up during Utah working hours?
Whoever's responsible for the DOS attacks is doing a disservice to a lot
of innocent users of Caldera Linux and other SCO/Caldera products.
There was a slashdot article about this, but as I've said before, I'm
unable to thoroughly read large screeds of slashdot postings (anyway I
have my slashdot settings turned up high to exclude the most idiotic stuff).
In my opinion, illegality is a very poor way to resolve any dispute.
Just my 0.02 GBP worth.
Whoever wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Nucleon wrote:
>
>
>>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>>caldera.com.
>
>
> Well, www.scosource.com is up!
>
>
>>
>
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
>> >has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
>> >commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
>> >I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
>>
>> Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
>> article.
>I'm afraid that you are so biased, you can't even see your own bias!
>Calling me an idiot does not change anything. Did anyone ever tell you
>that you can make an argument without resorting to insults?
When you consistently say stupid things, I am impelled to note the
reason for your blatherings. You keep insisting that I am a SCO
apologist when in fact all evidence says otherwise. That makes you
a liar, stuoid, or both.
>> If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
>>
>> to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.
>What makes you think there is no process to getting code included in the
>Linux kernel or a GNU utility? There are processes and those processes
>provide some level of protection against copyright violations. I say
>"some" because it is clearly impossible to be 100% sure.
And that is the point. You can't be sure, but you blather on that it is
impossible for SCO's claims to have any merit. It's not impossible,
and that doesn't indicate anything more than human fallability.
>>
>> The problems are real,
>Are they? So far, based on published evidence, there are no copyright
>violations in the Linux kernel. So far, the only known copyright
>violations are in the closed source software.
THE PROBLEM IS REAL. Gawd, again, such boneheaded stupidity.
Whether or not SCO has diddly, the problem still exists. How
many different ways does it need to be said?
>> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
>> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
>> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
>> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
>> Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
>> the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
>> who worked there COULD even know it was copied.
>>
>> This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
>> is not.
>So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
>source projects? If so, why?
Where does THAT non-sequitor come from? Who ever said or implied
such a thing? Where do you buy all these ochre colored fish you
are fond of dragging through this thread?
>Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?
That's completely unrelated. Can you wrap your teeny brain
around the actual discussion?
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:16:30 +0000, ton wrote:
>> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm
>I'm repeating here the comment I submitted about that article (no reply
>yet), which represents my biggest problem with it:
>I believe the argument that "There is no formal mechanism for ensuring
>that the developers are not submitting code which does not belong to
>them," an argument originated by Microsoft, reiterated by SCO, and
>repeated by you, sets a double standard for the open source community.
>Closed source software companies have no process either, because such a
>process would be impossible. It is in fact much more likely that closed
>source software companies use code they don't own, because in a company,
>there isn't even "unstructured peer review," and therefore there is little
>chance of being caught.
Correct. But it's not a double standard. The standard is precisely
the same, it's just that Open Source has more chance of getting
embroiled because anyone who wants to look at their code can.
>Consider the claim, "I wrote this code." If you don't trust the person
>who says it, it's impossible to prove he did, without access to all other
>code ever written. Since nobody has such access, the only solution is to
>only accept code from people whom you trust, and who are liable for any
>fraudulent copyright claims they make. This is exactly what the open
>source community does.
I don't think you understand the nature of this discussion. I am
not, as Microsoft has done, arguing AGAINST Open Source. I am merely
observing that this issue IS a problem and that there is apparently
no good way to deal with it. That doesn't mean that we should
give up and give in, but it does mean that from time to time
Open Source projects will be hit with lawsuits accusing them of
stealing code.
I think you can turn Microsoft's argument on its head: Open Source
is better because there IS more chance for someone to be
compensated if their code is stolen.
Nucleon
>
> I don't think you understand the nature of this discussion. I am not,
> as Microsoft has done, arguing AGAINST Open Source.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to group you with Microsoft, I'm just pointing out
a flaw in that article, and recycling what otherwise would have been a
waste of time to write.
The "lack of process" thing is straight from McBride's mouth. I think the
author's paraphrasing it seemingly without thought shows he isn't paying
close enough attention. In general, I think the media has trouble reading
between the lines, and takes what SCO says at face value too often.
> I am merely observing that this issue IS a problem and that there is
> apparently no good way to deal with it. That doesn't mean that we
> should give up and give in, but it does mean that from time to time Open
> Source projects will be hit with lawsuits accusing them of stealing
> code.
Hmm, we may just be defining things differently. How would you define the
problematic issue?
> I think you can turn Microsoft's argument on its head: Open Source is
> better because there IS more chance for someone to be compensated if
> their code is stolen.
Yeah, that's sorta my point. I'm objecting to the author's statement that
there no process, his implication that there could and should be, and that
open source therefore doesn't respect other's copyrights.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
War not make one great.
-- Yoda
Whoever
> Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
> >On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
> >> Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
> >> >has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
> >> >commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
> >> >I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
> >>
> >> Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
> >> article.
>
> >I'm afraid that you are so biased, you can't even see your own bias!
> >Calling me an idiot does not change anything. Did anyone ever tell you
> >that you can make an argument without resorting to insults?
>
> When you consistently say stupid things, I am impelled to note the
> reason for your blatherings.
What *actually* happens is that you consistently keep accusing me of
making statements that I have not made, call me an idiot (or similar) on
the basis of these imagined postings, then when I challenge you to show
where I made the *claimed* postings, you decline to refute. See below for
more of these.
The blatherings exist only in your mind, and possibly in other people's
postings.
>
> >> If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
> >>
> >> to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.
>
> >What makes you think there is no process to getting code included in the
> >Linux kernel or a GNU utility? There are processes and those processes
> >provide some level of protection against copyright violations. I say
> >"some" because it is clearly impossible to be 100% sure.
>
> And that is the point. You can't be sure, but you blather on that it is
> impossible for SCO's claims to have any merit.
Show any posting where I have claimed that it is impossible for SCO's
claims to have merit. Put up or shut up!
Oh, I forgot, because I post anonymously, in your twisted logic, I *must*
be using multiple aliases for my postings? Well, let's just examine that
logic a bit more. How can we know that you do not sometimes post under a
different alias?
Anyway, let's get back to the facts (if you can keep up): the question was
whether there is a lack of process in accepting code into the Linux
kernel, not whether SCO's claims have merit. The point is that, contrary
to what the article implies, there is a process.
I guess you will just call me an idiot or stupid again rather than engage
in a reasonable discussion of facts.
But let's answer you comment above: I have *never* claimed it is
impossible for SCO's claims to have merit. I have posted that SCO's
management has zero credibility, so there is little or no reason to
believe them. If you don't agree with this, show any posting where I have
claimed that there is zero possiblity that SCO's claims have merit.
My guess is that you will ignore my challenge above!
> It's not impossible,
> and that doesn't indicate anything more than human fallability.
>
> >>
>
> >> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
> >> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
> >> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
> >> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
> >> Linux kernel folk.
Well, I think you will find that the process to include code in the kernel
is a little more thorough than yours. Linus does not accept random bits of
code from people that he does not know and trust.
> >So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
> >source projects? If so, why?
>
> Where does THAT non-sequitor come from? Who ever said or implied
> such a thing? Where do you buy all these ochre colored fish you
> are fond of dragging through this thread?
Because no-one has discussed this same problem in the context of closed
source projects. The article that prompted the discussion talked aobut the
risk for open source projects without mentioning that the risk of copying
the other way also exists. Also, there are other possibilities, such as
employees bringing a copy of their former employer's code with them.
>
> >Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?
>
> That's completely unrelated. Can you wrap your teeny brain
> around the actual discussion?
No, it's key to understanding your thinking, and your avoiding a clear
answer on the question itself provides an answer.
to...@aplawrence.com
>Anyway, let's get back to the facts (if you can keep up): the question was
>whether there is a lack of process in accepting code into the Linux
>kernel, not whether SCO's claims have merit. The point is that, contrary
>to what the article implies, there is a process.
Nobody ever said there wasn't a process. The
problem is that the process can't be made foolproof. THAT'S
NOBODY'S FAULT. It is just the way it is.
>I guess you will just call me an idiot or stupid again rather than engage
>in a reasonable discussion of facts.
You are an idiot. You shift from place to place, making up
strawmen to puncture, dragging in unrelated crapola, and always
ignoring what this is really about: Open Source is more vulnerable
to copyright and patent claims than closed source is. As I said,
unlike Microsofts opinion, I don't think that's a negative point
against Open Source. In fact, I think it's a good thing for
those who worry about their code being stolen: it's easy to
find here. But that does mean that Linux et al. will be pestered
by this sort of thing every now and then. Some cases will turn
out to be unjustified, but it will still be a damn annoyance that
will have to be dealt with.
>But let's answer you comment above: I have *never* claimed it is
>impossible for SCO's claims to have merit. I have posted that SCO's
>management has zero credibility, so there is little or no reason to
>believe them. If you don't agree with this, show any posting where I have
>claimed that there is zero possiblity that SCO's claims have merit.
>My guess is that you will ignore my challenge above!
Duly ignored. Unrelated, unimportant, useless noise.
>> It's not impossible,
>> and that doesn't indicate anything more than human fallability.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
>> >> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
>> >> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
>> >> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
>> >> Linux kernel folk.
>Well, I think you will find that the process to include code in the kernel
>is a little more thorough than yours. Linus does not accept random bits of
>code from people that he does not know and trust.
Oh for crying out loud! I might as well argue with a cat!
>> >So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
>> >source projects? If so, why?
>>
>> Where does THAT non-sequitor come from? Who ever said or implied
>> such a thing? Where do you buy all these ochre colored fish you
>> are fond of dragging through this thread?
>Because no-one has discussed this same problem in the context of closed
>source projects. The article that prompted the discussion talked aobut the
>risk for open source projects without mentioning that the risk of copying
>the other way also exists. Also, there are other possibilities, such as
>employees bringing a copy of their former employer's code with them.
Duh. So what?
Once again, wrap your teeny brain around one important sentence:
I DON'T SEE THIS AS A NEGATIVE.
Microsoft's arguments are nonsense, but the PROBLEM still remains.
Open Source projects will be pestered with this sort of
accusation.
>>
>> >Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?
>>
>> That's completely unrelated. Can you wrap your teeny brain
>> around the actual discussion?
>No, it's key to understanding your thinking, and your avoiding a clear
>answer on the question itself provides an answer.
OK, Poo of little brain: have you stopped beating your wife?
I never did "believe" SCO's management. I never did disbelieve
them either. The only thing that the latest debacle has changed
is that I now am wondering how anyone could be dumb enough to let
this happen. Not that I ever had a lot of respect for their
various fumblings, but this "we're going to show the code!", "oh,
THAT wasn't really the code" crapola is truly a jaw dropper.
But that has nothing to do with belief. Nor has there ever been
any cause for belief or disbelief: we all know that sooner or
later the cards will be face up on the table and that until then
none of us have a clue who's holding what.
to...@aplawrence.com
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:41:27 +0000, ton wrote:
>>
>> I am merely observing that this issue IS a problem and that there is
>> apparently no good way to deal with it. That doesn't mean that we
>> should give up and give in, but it does mean that from time to time Open
>> Source projects will be hit with lawsuits accusing them of stealing
>> code.
>Hmm, we may just be defining things differently. How would you define the
>problematic issue?
That Open Source is going to be pestered with this sort of thing.
>
>> I think you can turn Microsoft's argument on its head: Open Source is
>> better because there IS more chance for someone to be compensated if
>> their code is stolen.
>Yeah, that's sorta my point. I'm objecting to the author's statement that
>there no process, his implication that there could and should be, and that
>open source therefore doesn't respect other's copyrights.
Well, if you read some of his other columns, his general grasp
of things seems less than insightful.. but the point still
remains that the problem is real.
Whoever
> Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, let's get back to the facts (if you can keep up): the question was
> >whether there is a lack of process in accepting code into the Linux
> >kernel, not whether SCO's claims have merit. The point is that, contrary
> >to what the article implies, there is a process.
>
> Nobody ever said there wasn't a process. The
Let's go back to the orginal article:
"There is no formal mechanism for ensuring that developers are not
submitting code ..."
>
> >I guess you will just call me an idiot or stupid again rather than engage
> >in a reasonable discussion of facts.
>
> You are an idiot. You shift from place to place, making up
> strawmen to puncture, dragging in unrelated crapola,
No, that's what you do. Whenever I challenge you to show a quote or
proof, you ignore my challenges.
> >But let's answer you comment above: I have *never* claimed it is
> >impossible for SCO's claims to have merit. I have posted that SCO's
> >management has zero credibility, so there is little or no reason to
> >believe them. If you don't agree with this, show any posting where I have
> >claimed that there is zero possiblity that SCO's claims have merit.
>
> >My guess is that you will ignore my challenge above!
>
> Duly ignored. Unrelated, unimportant, useless noise.
Utter bullshit! YOU claimed that I had made a specific statement. Once
again, you fail to offer any proof that I made such a statement. But on
the false premise you call me an idiot or something similar. This is what
you have done mutiple times.
I have also caught you out denying statments you made earlier in order to
further an argunment. When I post the evidence of your previous post, you
ignore it.
>
> Oh for crying out loud! I might as well argue with a cat!
Why not, your cat probably provides the same level of argument that you
do!
> >>
> >> >Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?
> >>
> >> That's completely unrelated. Can you wrap your teeny brain
> >> around the actual discussion?
>
> >No, it's key to understanding your thinking, and your avoiding a clear
> >answer on the question itself provides an answer.
>
>
> But that has nothing to do with belief. Nor has there ever been
> any cause for belief or disbelief:
So SCO's constantly changing story and debunked proof of copying is not
any cause for disbelief?
Oh well, I think I've had enough of this discussion. I will stop posting
until another subject comes along.
Jeff Liebermann
(...)
>ignoring what this is really about: Open Source is more vulnerable
>to copyright and patent claims than closed source is. As I said,
>unlike Microsofts opinion, I don't think that's a negative point
>against Open Source. In fact, I think it's a good thing for
>those who worry about their code being stolen: it's easy to
>find here. But that does mean that Linux et al. will be pestered
>by this sort of thing every now and then. Some cases will turn
>out to be unjustified, but it will still be a damn annoyance that
>will have to be dealt with.
Drivel: One of the reasons that SCO was so late with including open
source software in the distribution was that SCO legal was afraid of
getting sued for infringement by author or authors unknown. The
problem was getting permission from the authors. When contacted, most
were fairly co-operative, a few were hostile, but none of them could
clearly demonstrate that they represented all the other sub-authors
that contributed to the work. Getting permission of the principal
code base maintainer was insufficient as SCO legal wanted to be sure
that nobody would appear, declare that they had contributed a few
lines of code to the project, and sue SCO for infringement. It was a
sufficiently serious worry that the open source parts and pieces were
initially an unofficial effort, and a separate distribution
(Skunkware).
Never in my wildest imagination would I have dreamed that SCO would
reverse the situation, but I can see where they got the idea. The
current litigation will have effects far beyond the current pissing
match. If companies like IBM cannot insure that they have free and
clear title to their code, then they will purchase a congress critter
who will insure that it can never happen again. No way can the
contributors of a few lines of code be allowed to again claim massive
infringement. My guess(tm) is that some simplistic formula declaring
less than 10% plagiarism to be considered minor and not actionable.
Perhaps something dumber like requiring a statistically significant
percentage of plagiarized code before one can sue. Whatever happens,
IBM is certain to do something to plug the hole and insure that they
can continue to use/sell Linux without harassment.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
[Note: Personal attacks deleted and ignored]
>You see, I know something about IP law and lawsuits. The first requirement
>of a plaintiff is to mitigate damages by identifying the code that
>infringes their rights in order to give the plaintiff full opporunity to
>correct the problem. The next step if the plaintiff refuses to stop is to
>file a motion for a temporary interlocutory injunction from continued
>infringement.
I won't pretend to know much about IP law. So, I asked an IP attorney
if this were true. As usual, I received multiple conflicting answers.
I'll try to be as coherent as possible.
The plaintiff has absolutely no "requirements" to do anything.
However, if they expect the court to be nice to them, they had better
be cooperative. During the discovery phase of the proceedings, the
federal magistrate (I'm assuming this is gonna be handled by a federal
court) will demand that SCO show its evidence to the defendant. SCO
can refuse, claiming trade secrets or some such rot, but that's up to
the court. In any case, it won't be a public disclosure. If SCO
continues to refuse to deliver the evidence, they are likely to incur
that wrath of the court and a motion to dismiss is highly likely to be
accepted. If SCO continues to delay supplying the infringing code,
and by some miracle prevails in court, IBM can claim that SCO was
contributory from the date of the suit, and is therefore not entitled
to damages beyond that date. Damages are another real problem as it
is possible for SCO to win the suit, but receive no damages. SCO
would need to demonstrate, in monetary terms, that IBM damaged SCO's
business.
>In order for a motion for an temporary interlocutory injunction to succeed,
>plaintiff must have a prima facia case - clear ownership of the copyright,
>clear case of plaintiff using the copyright material in an unauthorized
>manner and proof of damages beyond normal during litigation.
To the best of my limited knowledge, SCO has not filed for an
injunction to prevent IBM from continuing their infringement. They
are not required to do so. They have tried to revoke IBM's Unix
license, which would normally be followed by a request for injunctive
relief, but that hasn't happened. I've been told that in order to
successfully obtain a temporary injunction clear title is NOT
required, only proof that damage is being done. I don't think that
SCO can prove damage.
>A motion can be filed and heard in less than 30 days and a decision can
>generally be heard from the bench in less than a week.
>
>WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?
Good question as they will be required to disclose the infringing code
to IBM during the discovery phase. Since this is the very first step
of the process, nothing useful could be gained by delay. My question
would be "What are they thinking"?
>(1) The SCO Group does not have clear ownership of the code in System V
>as a result of the BSD settlement.
That was not a court judgement. It was a settlement negotiated
between the various parties. The issue can be revisited again.
>(2) The SCO Group has failed to show a single line of encumbered code
>therefore there is no clear case of unauthorised use.
Well, they did show something in Las Vegas, but that turned out to be
BSD code, which SCO doesn't own.
>(3) The SCO Group can't show proof of damages because SCO has been a loser
>for at least 5 years and has been passed around like a turd from one owner
>to another for at least that long - nobody has made money owning SCO except
>perhaps the channel.
No, they could claim that they have been a loser because of IBM
infringement. The terms of the Project Monterey agreement between IBM
and SCO might demonstrate this. SCO did everything they promised to
do. IBM did nothing, switched the code base from Unixware to AIX,
ripped off what code they needed, and went on their merry way leaving
SCO to figure out what hit them.
>So, there was no debate in my mind that The SCO Group was Full Of Shit!
So much for an open mind. To really understand an issue, you should
place yourself in the shoes of both sides, and view the world from
their viewpoint. You might see something you missed.
>You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
>maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
>it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
Fine. Please list the parties involved that might have a legal claim
to the code. Be sure to name everyone that might crawl out of the
woodwork claiming infringement.
>There are lots of instances of code being rejected because of uncertain
>copyright pedigree and some code was actually removed because of
>conflicting license terms between the GPL and owner of donated code.
Good. That means that someone kept a list of names (and contact
information). Surely Linus has a signed copy of the GPL from each
contributor to insure that nobody changes their mind or their license
terms. Actually, there may be such a document or archive, but I don't
wanna look for it right now (on a holiday).
>Linux is on the fast track to taking over your marketshare with a superior
>product and a less expensive business model.
SCO OSR5 has been more than adequate for my customers and their needs.
Linux does not constitute a substantial improvement or superior
product. In my never humble opinion, it is an incremental improvement
that offers many features not needed by my commercial (mostly retail)
customers who are not going to dump their OS for perhaps a 10%
improvement. I will agree that Linux is superior for internet servers
and offers a much less expensive alternative.
>One last thought, Slashdot is not the flagship of the Linux community. It is
>an open forum where anyone with anything to say has a venue.
I have a related adage.
At the bottom of every dumpster is diamond.
Slashdot has its place. I read and sometimes post on Slashdot.
However, I find the effort of digging through the garbage for the gem
at the bottom to be rather tedious. The gems are there, but difficult
to find.
Nucleon
> Nucleon <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:41:27 +0000, ton wrote:
>>>
>>> I am merely observing that this issue IS a problem and that there is
>>> apparently no good way to deal with it. That doesn't mean that we
>>> should give up and give in, but it does mean that from time to time Open
>>> Source projects will be hit with lawsuits accusing them of stealing
>>> code.
>
>>Hmm, we may just be defining things differently. How would you define the
>>problematic issue?
>
> That Open Source is going to be pestered with this sort of thing.
I can't argue with that, it's clearly happening right now.
>>> I think you can turn Microsoft's argument on its head: Open Source is
>>> better because there IS more chance for someone to be compensated if
>>> their code is stolen.
>
>>Yeah, that's sorta my point. I'm objecting to the author's statement that
>>there no process, his implication that there could and should be, and that
>>open source therefore doesn't respect other's copyrights.
>
> Well, if you read some of his other columns, his general grasp
> of things seems less than insightful.. but the point still
> remains that the problem is real.
I think there's an opportunity for good to come from this. The GPL may be
tested in court. Moreover, however, it's possible the judge could affirm
that only a lying contributor would be liable, not the maintainer,
distributors, or users, as long as they act in good faith, remove the
code, etc. A judge may counter McBride's lie that the users are liable.
This would essentially be a solution to the problem: such lawsuits may
come up, but users wouldn't be afraid. After all, they didn't do anything
wrong; they can't possibly be expected to do the impossible and prove the
origin of the code.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
Life is like an analogy.
Bill Andersen
> SCO are unable to keep their site up continuously
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph/?site=www.sco.com
> Maybe its only up during Utah working hours?
>
> Whoever's responsible for the DOS attacks is doing a disservice to a lot
> of innocent users of Caldera Linux and other SCO/Caldera products.
Ian, How do you know that Whoever IS doing the attacks?
He( he being Whoever) has been quite vocal about his dislike
of SCO, but I don't think we have any evidence Whoever actually
is doing the DOS attacks as you say above (grin).
Of course, we really don't know who Whoever really is do we?
I guess one could say "Whoever is doing them..." It is nice
to know we can now blame everything on Whoever and know it is
just one individual on the SCO group!
Maybe I'll change my email name to "They". I'd get credited
with a whole lot of things then. Afterall, "They Say" that
bigfoot really does exist.
Whoever
> Ian, How do you know that Whoever IS doing the attacks?
>
> He( he being Whoever) has been quite vocal about his dislike
> of SCO, but I don't think we have any evidence Whoever actually
> is doing the DOS attacks as you say above (grin).
Bill,
That really had me laughing!
But, while we are talking about websites, let's say my company is called
"The BS Group". I'm going to set up a division, business, whatever, called
"BSSource". You'd think that I would register the "bssource.com" domain,
wouldn't you? That is, if I *really* intended to sell products under that
brand, not just sue people!
So why did SCO not register "scosource.com"? Check out what's there --
it's not SCO.
Bill Andersen
> Bill,
>
> That really had me laughing!
I'm glad I could make your day a little brighter.
> But, while we are talking about websites, let's say my company is called
> "The BS Group". I'm going to set up a division, business, whatever, called
> "BSSource". You'd think that I would register the "bssource.com" domain,
> wouldn't you? That is, if I *really* intended to sell products under that
> brand, not just sue people!
Exactly what in my post made you think I was talking about websites?
Bill
Nucleon
Well, I'd assume that scosource.com was around before SCO even thought
about starting this nonsense. The owner is adamant about not selling it;
perhaps he's in the know, or perhaps he's just annoyed at the influx of
offers he must be getting.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
There is no better way to get rid of an unjust law than rigorous enforcement.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>One last thought, Slashdot is not the flagship of the Linux community. It is
>an open forum where anyone with anything to say has a venue.
I'd always wondered where the rather terse comments attacking SCO were
coming from. Well, they're automated by a script. See:
http://www.rageagainst.net/scogenerator.php
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager je...@cruzio.com AE6KS
Bill Vermillion
Scott <sc...@tiktok.demon.c.u.o.t.s.a> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
>
>>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?
>;-) It's a real shame isn't it? Sad to see such a useful source of
>lies and threats shutdown. ...
[most deleted as there is only one line I'm commenting about]
>Too bad they no longer have any revenue left to put into making their
>products usable or competitive, since everything is paid to second
>rate lawfirms, trying to defend them as the most reviled company in
>the World.
I don't know if Boies' law firm is second rate - but in the past he
has been one of the more formidable opponents in he legal world.
He led and won against Microsoft in the recent anti-trust trials.
He was part of the team defending IBM againt the government when
the government took on IBM - and the goverment finally dropped that
after 13 years.
He has been successful winning many $Billion-Plus awards over the
years - and his biggest win/failure was in the Florida election
dispute of 2000 when he wone for Gore in Florida but lost
at the Supreme Court. He was hired by Alaska and he got BP/Amoco
to stop operating on Alaska's North Shore.
He's someone you don't want to have suing you.
What is going to be interesting in this case is that Boies's former
firm is the one representing IBM. So both sides know all of the
oppositions dirty tricks.
'second rate' is not a term I'd apply to anything that Boies has
done. Tenacious, winning, and relentless would be terms mor
appropriate.
Given the cast of characters this should be a very interesting
suit. I think even Johnny Cochran - with all his publicity - would
not like to have Boies as an opponent.
Go look at his biography and you'll see his wins and defeats.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
Whoever <nob...@devnull.none> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Nucleon wrote:
>
>> Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>> caldera.com.
>Well, www.scosource.com is up!
And it is in England and has no relationship to SCO in any way.
There are some funny links such the the Onion article were
Microsoft patented the 1's and 0's.
Or the automobile virus spreading through gas nozzles.
Bill Vermillion
Ian Wilson <scob...@infotop.co.uk> wrote:
>SCO are unable to keep their site up continuously
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph/?site=www.sco.com
>Maybe its only up during Utah working hours?
>Whoever's responsible for the DOS attacks is doing a disservice
>to a lot of innocent users of Caldera Linux and other
>SCO/Caldera products.
And if you've read any of the trade mags you'll see that other
non-SCO related clients using the same network providers are also
suffering. So the attacks take it from them vs SCO to them vs
anybody in that geographical area using the same provider. Not
good.