Dirty code......(OT)
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft®. We have no bugs in our software, Never!, We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost, to you, at this time.
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 07:32, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
Yep, all the areas where SCO did not have anything to offer in the code
where the alleged thefts are coming from. And considering that they
themselves have been pushing linux under the open source and GPL banner,
I for one am not going to lose sleep over this.
SCO is gambling everything they have and their grandmother that someone
is going to fall for their bluff and cave in.
Nothing SCO has done so far has made me think they might have a point.
If they did have a genuine point, they would be open about exactly what
code was stolen and from where, so it could be rectified. Instead they
will show selected bits of code, and under NDA, so if you see what, you
can't tell anyone about it. Hardly a way to inspire confidence into
others that they are telling the truth.
SCO is a pathetic whinging looser company, and the sooner they go bust,
the better for everyone.
Just my 2p.
--
Anders Karlsson
In a previous message, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
Actually, I was surprised by this list of technologies that are alledged to be misappropriated into linux. A while back, someone (possibly you, Fred) posted an article by (IIRC) an FSF person, detailing the history of unix and linux, and showing how various technologies could not possibly have been taken into linux from unix - whether because linux had them first, or because they were present in other unices, but not SCO's version. Specifically, ISTR that the specific technologies mentioned were JFS, NUMA, RCU and SMP! In other words, a detailed view of the history of linux and unix shows that these cannot possibly have been misappropriated into linux. Can anyone remember the URL for that article? It's expired from my history (I only keep 2 weeks of this list because of its size!). John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Fields of Valour: 2 Norse clans battle on one of 3 different boards
The 03.06.17 at 09:40, John Pettigrew wrote:
Can anyone remember the URL for that article? It's expired from my history (I only keep 2 weeks of this list because of its size!).
It could be: OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html I have it on disk ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
In a previous message, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The 03.06.17 at 09:40, John Pettigrew wrote:
Can anyone remember the URL for that article? It's expired from my history (I only keep 2 weeks of this list because of its size!).
It could be:
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
That's the one, thanks! So, how does this sit alongside SCO's accusations? John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Fields of Valour: 2 Norse clans battle on one of 3 different boards
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint http://www.open source.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
That's the one, thanks! So, how does this sit alongside SCO's accusations?
Just waiting for something to actually look up ;) -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services
On Tuesday June 17 2003 7:32 am, John Pettigrew wrote:
In a previous message, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The 03.06.17 at 09:40, John Pettigrew wrote:
Can anyone remember the URL for that article? It's expired from my history (I only keep 2 weeks of this list because of its size!).
It could be:
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
That's the one, thanks! So, how does this sit alongside SCO's accusations?
'No wonder so many of us are confused and just want it over with! :) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft®. We have no bugs in our software, Never!, We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost, to you, at this time.
On Tuesday June 17 2003 4:40 am, John Pettigrew wrote:
In a previous message, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
Actually, I was surprised by this list of technologies that are alledged to be misappropriated into linux. A while back, someone (possibly you, Fred) posted an article by (IIRC) an FSF person, detailing the history of unix and linux, and showing how various technologies could not possibly have been taken into linux from unix - whether because linux had them first, or because they were present in other unices, but not SCO's version.
I did post that. I've read so much on this topic, I can't remember "who said what" anymore. :)
Specifically, ISTR that the specific technologies mentioned were JFS, NUMA, RCU and SMP!
In other words, a detailed view of the history of linux and unix shows that these cannot possibly have been misappropriated into linux.
That is what we read, yes. However, I posted a link LATE last night that claims otherwise.
Can anyone remember the URL for that article? It's expired from my history (I only keep 2 weeks of this list because of its size!).
Sorry.......I don't. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft®. We have no bugs in our software, Never!, We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost, to you, at this time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 16 June 2003 23:32, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
Fred
Well, the debate rages on on /., if you really want to call it a debate! However, many people are calling into the discussion the history of SysV and Unix. The new twist is apparently SCO is upping the ante to 3 times the original claim of damages from 1 billion to 3 billion - these guys have big cajones if nothing else. No one has "really" seen the alledged "dirty code" in context to date. There have been several translations of the German article related to the individual that had seen the supposed tainted code, none of which is in context and has much of the peripheral identification removed. The way I look at it is like this. SCO is shooting off its' mouth a lot while IBM has remained relatively mute. I net worth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 90+ billion while SCO is just under 40 million. IBM has a 1000 lbs gorilla for a legal team, SCO has no legal team of record (at least on the employee roster and internal payroll). Some guy on /. put it all up. Have a look at it and certain things become painfully obvious: SCO Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance) Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*) IBM Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 315,889 (Source: Multex) Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com) Sources: IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IBM &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannual SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SCO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm l IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 - http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surve ys/aug01.cfm *SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first. Any additional information that anyone has would be helpful. Source: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/16/2248200 Author: Tangfan http://tangfan.dyndns.org/ IBM could well afford to buy SCO, pay them out, or even if they loose their assest out drop for 96.484 billion to 93.484 billion. On the otherhand, SCO could be in a position to loose money as soon as Wall Street gets disinterested or come to the conclusion that perhaps SCO is blowing a bunch of smoke. Then we can expect SCO's stock to fall precipitously. I garner that this is one part of IBM thinking and the other part is to bleed them as dry as possible in legal fees - even if Boise is working on contingency this could get expensive in a hurry. And lastly, perhaps there are other motives at work. One is that by bring this issue to the forefront that any other idiot with Ideas of muscling OSS and Linux for cash via various law suits would be discouraged from doing so if IBM beats the tar out of SCO and crushes them. Also rumors abound about possible moves by AT&T, as well as a couple of others. I could be in the best interest of everyone (except SCO) to play this out, get it settled and be done with it in a way that can relatively assure that this sort of farce would be the least likely of options for any other low life's like SCO. Just my thoughts and HO. Curtis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+71MUiqnGhdjCOJsRArfhAJ9Gj6omomVZS020V75THk0fSaN8pgCfUyVZ yrmJzlsX8dSOfJWnQfQ+Cko= =9MOP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 12:42 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 16 June 2003 23:32, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
SCO Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance) Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*)
IBM Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 315,889 (Source: Multex) Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com)
Sources: IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IBM &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannual SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SCO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm l IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 - http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surve ys/aug01.cfm
*SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first.
Dear Curtis, Excellent thinking again Curtis. I stand in awe of your energy. A few thoughts: IBM's staff attorneys IMHO count for nothing; at best they co-ordinate the retained outside counsel firms. They have some of the largest and most respected firms in the world. IBM's scope of action is astounding. When AT&T brashly entered the world of mainframe commercial computing in the 1970's IBM took it as a potentially mortal business threat. IBM reasoned that since 99.9% of AT&T's profits were produced under a government legalized and protected monopoly on telecommunications, AT&T was stepping 'out of bounds'. These gov't protected revenues (guaranteed profits) were in essence going to be used to finance AT&T's entry into IBM's competitive arena. IBM made a most remarkable attacks on the AT&T gov't granted monopoly. The then IBM Corp VP and chief Counsel Nicholas Katzenbach (Atty General to Jack Kennedy) began to lobby congress and the courts in a way never seen in history. In the end the US Appellate Courts upheld US Circuit Court Judge Green's historic orders to break up and 'un-protect' the worlds largest corporate conglomerate "The Bell System". The whole story has yet to be written. (Yes IBM was HUGHLY in the Democratic Party Camp) David Bois whose firm SCO has hired massacred M$, only the Bush Justice Dept appointees gave it all back to M$. My assumption is that the Bush folks thought they were providing the 'greater good' to the American people by protecting those who had invested their fortunes in M$; but the AT&T lesson is sharp and bright as diamonds == The economic prosperity that was the child of the unprecedented engineering and marketing tidal-wave of innovation and invention that flooded into the newly opened 'wild frontier' of the previously forbidden AT&T "Private Domain" was the father to the ERA of the PC and all that followed. Just try to imaging the world of telecommunications, internet, email, web commerce, and lots more in a world where AT&T still had it's gov't licensed monopoly! But David Bois once represented IBM; I'm sure his staff is wrestling with how to address the possible conflict of interest of now litigating against IBM. Never forget that stock traders can make money on stocks that go down as well as up. It is all in the fluctuations and when they happen. If the trader has some control of what the press is saying to the 'market at large' then that trader has hugh potential for profit; unles they catch him. Remember when a group of media types allied themselves with a bunch of stock traders and hired a PHD Doctor of (hrm hmm garbled garbage) and took him around the country and called press conferences regarding the "Safety of Nutrasweet brand of Aspartame? The local press and media reporters would show up and dutifully report on the 'Doctors' findings about Nutrasweet and birth defects, yada yada yada. Who can resist stories like that? Well it turns out that these wonderful folks were making fortunes on short term trading on Searle (maker of Nutrasweet) stock. They got caught; but since several of them were full time NEWS Dept employees of major TV networks very little news was written about the fraud. But most everyone seems to remember that there is something dangerour about Nutrasweet. btw nothing has ever been found to be harmful about aspartame. JMHO ................... PeterB p.s. KMail spell checking mysteriously quit yesterday, so please make allowances -- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux, since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 May 2003, The City of Munich, Germany ordered 14,000 Workstation Lic for SuSE 8.2, despite M$ cutting their bid to $0.10 on the Dollar This will be remembered MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ "Non Sanz Capsicum" "Not Without Cayenne" --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Curtis,
Excellent thinking again Curtis. I stand in awe of your energy.
Thank you for you comments and insight. A few personal comments regarding my "energy" related to this and Linux. As you have stated, AT&T had been on the cusp of dominating a market wherein many of the innovations and technologies we take for granted, and some make a living from would not be here - at least in the form they are today. If not for the actions of IBM, as you suggest, and the subsequent breakup of Ma Bell then who knows. Now, looking at the landscape of today I view M$ in much the same light. How many technologies and innovations has M$ squash, killed, or bastardized that would have led to perhaps things unimagined? So, lets be honest here. M$ has done some great things. The proclamation of Mr. Gates to essentially put a desktop (M$ desktop) in every home and make computers accessible and usable by any one has for the most part been realized. But at what cost? Linux is as I have always envisioned computing to be. Insofar as all those talented people that "I" admire being able to work at their crafts in a relatively unfettered way. Bring technologies to the common individual and furthering the innovations that have yet to be wrought or even dreamed of. It is this reason that I have such a passion about this. Linux has come a very long way in such a short time. However, it can be argued, that it's still in its' very early stages. There are no real secrets in Linux. I is truly open at its' core. Anyone that wants to use or contribute may do so as long as they don't get greedy and selfish. It is much along the lines of science. I was trained in the sciences and one of the prime paradigms is that no real progress can be gain in a vacuum. As researchers discover and test new information is released and the body of knowledge is ever expanding. Just think about what is common place today and then picture the mind set of some 50 years or more ago as to what they would have dreamed was possible! I contend that Linux and OSS offers much to society in much the same manner. On a more personal note. I have been an clinical health care practitioner for about 2 years. I find it to be less satisfying than I had hoped, most due to the amount of beauracracy and just the shortage of human resources that leads to early burnout. I have decided to change careers and focus on information technologies and computers. In doing so I think it is encumbant that I establish relationships in and contribute to this field whenever possible. This too is part of my passion for Linux, OSS, and computer technologies. I do not know just what niche I will find for myself in this field. Perhaps as a coder, or a admin, perhaps and an analyst - I don't know. What I do know is this. Linux shows no signs of going away, regardless of the riff-raff that may from time to time pollute it with their wishes to control or circumvent its' direction or development. So, it's not so much a question of energy. It's the end result of a passion. One that I am both content with and unashamed of. To put it plainly.... THIS STUFF KICK ASS! Forgive my indulgence. Curtis. :) P.S. If some of the words are misspelled, forgive this. Some things Kmail's spell checker does not have references to. :-( -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+73YGiqnGhdjCOJsRAq7wAJ9eQCq6V1gEcIBs3JNriYDCIM7nEgCeLIdC isL/6PeZqAdPRm1HTzQVCTY= =tXgH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (7)
-
Anders Karlsson -
Carlos E. R. -
Curtis Rey -
Fred A. Miller -
John Pettigrew -
Lester Caine -
Peter B Van Campen