|
|
|
|
| prezbedard 2003-08-23, 1:19 am |
| I was wondering when Torvalds would speak out on the whole mess. | |
| Papiya 2003-08-23, 7:20 am |
| SCO = Smoking Crack Operation. | |
| mindmesh 2003-08-23, 8:44 am |
| Is Linus right that SCO is "smoking crack"?
Yes
96.51%
No
3.49%
Wow.. A politician would kill for numbers like that. | |
| tadams119 2003-08-23, 12:02 pm |
| I hope you all are right. But don't forget that the people behind this mess at Sco are the same people who successfully sued Microsoft a few years ago over a old reverse-engineered version of DOS they bought years after the fact. These people are speculators and cheap opportunists who buy old technology purely for it's litagation potential, but they are not stupid and they are not crazy or high on crack. I'm rooting for Linux and studying for Linux+ or the LPI cert so my loyalties are to Linux. But some informed observers think that the collective Linux communities have their head in the sand about the danger of the Sco situation. Take a look at this:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1115156,00.asp | |
| Boulware5 2003-08-23, 1:09 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by mindmesh
Is Linus right that SCO is "smoking crack"?
Yes
96.51%
No
3.49%
Wow.. A politician would kill for numbers like that.
Yah and that 3% are from the people at SCO.  | |
| prezbedard 2003-08-23, 1:44 pm |
| Well I have read Dvork in the past. I usually have enjoyed his writing. I will have to disagree here. What I read of the eweek article if Torvalds is correct and I would find it hard for him to be wrong. It is clear he wrote the original linux. The code that SCO claims they have rights to may be found in many other areas including BSD which they have no rights over. Even if they do indeed have rights to it(which is very doubtful) that doesn't mean they own the whole OS. They can't go around claiming what is not theirs. Plus if it can be proven that the code is widely distributed and availble in different areas and the SCO did nothing to protect it the SCO will have an even harder time in a court of law. | |
| azimuth40 2003-08-23, 3:01 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
SCO = Smoking Crack Operation.
Can't get it out of my head. I just love that quote above. However I think they will go the way of glue sniffers first. Wait maybe they have already to be on such an insane quest. | |
| ClintonN 2003-08-23, 10:12 pm |
| As a former glue sniffer I resent that  | |
|
|
| ruscorp 2003-08-24, 12:53 am |
| ...and what were you expecting from a company based in Utah? Perhaps logic? | |
|
| Nice article c/- PC Authority
"SCO is right where it doesn't matter and wrong where it does," said Eric Raymond, in a paper posted to the Web, "SCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles Out". Some of Linux code was copied from old Unix versions, but "the relevant ancestral code was released in open source" before it was included in Linux. Much of it was released by SCO itself, while it was still doing business as Caldera, Raymond said.
Moreover, the code appears in Linux versions for the Itanium processor, not for the commonplace 32-bit used in most PCs and Intel servers today, Raymond said. "This means that upwards of 90% of all Linux users, including the corporate users SCO is now shaking down for license fees, are running binary Linux distributions that do not include this code," Raymond said.
Unfortunately the author when quoting Eric Raymond used the phrase "Raymond said" about 20 times ... lol
Just goes to show what fools these guys are. | |
|
|
|
|