Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX"

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the can-you-spell-perjury dept.

Caldera 446

eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the Novell Vs. SCO case we've been following. Our good friend Darl McBride made some interesting comments in court yesterday. He stated (under oath): 'Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers... We have evidence System V is in Linux... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]." This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and contradicts what SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag had just finished testifying earlier that day (testimony that McBride did not hear)."

cancel ×

446 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This should be good (4, Funny)

IHawkMike (564552) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273658)

Unfolds chair. Grabs popcorn.

Re:This should be good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273686)

Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope.

Re:This should be good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273952)

Finders keepers. You know, you can find the darndest things outside his office window.

Re:This should be good (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274390)

I thought that was the tower of babel that he was building outside his office window.

Re:This should be good (2, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273984)

God, is this Darl McBride still alive and kicking? You'd think he would have found another job by now. I can't believe that after having essentially bankrupted his company with these ruinous lawsuits, he continues to attract naive investors who keep propping him up. It's like that guy who's running Zimbabwe into the ground--just go already.

Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.

Re:This should be good (5, Funny)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274274)

Linux is NOT Unix.
You got it wrong. It's GNU that is not Unix.

Re:This should be good (2, Interesting)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274436)

Hence the pedantic name GNU/Linux...

Re:This should be good (1)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274238)

I was expecting the big-foot icon.

Show me the money... er... evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273664)

Let's see this precious "evidence that System V is in Linux" that SCO claims they have. Maybe if they put their money where their mouth is, they'd get to keep more of it.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273786)

#include <errno.h>
That's what he thinks.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274300)

errno.h is part of the POSIX standard and is the property of the Open Group.

IIRC (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273666)

Didn't they already bring the evidence, and have it shot down? IBM's "Show us the code"?

Re:IIRC (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273860)

Not exactly. It was more like "its in program X but we won't say which of the many modules of the program or which versions let alone where in the module the alleged violation is".

The fun part of that was when IBM pointed out that earlier in the case SCOG had objected to IBM doing the same by making non specific claims and the judge had ruled in favour of SCOG. Naturally the judge then ruled the same way when IBM made the same objection against SCOG and shot down SCOGs "evidence" as inadequate.

SCO?SCU?GNU?GNO. (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273680)

Guess we got to make a new one: SNL: SCO's not Linix.

Kinda takes the fun out of backacronyms though...

Re:You misspelled Gnu/linux you insensitive clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273792)

LOL.

I am gonna tell Linus La la la.

lol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273682)

it's true

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273798)

Is that you Kurt???

Re:lol (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274328)

No, it's a baby raccoon.

So if Novell Owns Unix... (3, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273692)

If Novel Owns Unix and if SCO got money for Linux and its relationship to Unix-rights, McBride basically said "we need to pay Novel the money we got."

The only reason I can think he said this:

1) He actually believes it.
2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.

The awesome part about this (5, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273944)

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it. That would have to include MS's and Sun's participation in this. I would guess that McBride is enough of a gutless wonder that he would take the deal. But if he confirms that (Gates and/or Balmer) and McNealy were participants to fleece the companies, what could happen to them? I am guessing nothing.

Re:The awesome part about this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274178)

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it.
I think instead some community service might be appropriate, like maybe having to help teach children in public schools how to use Linux.

Re:The awesome part about this (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274434)

I thought the US had laws against cruel and unusual punishments.

Re:The awesome part about this (1)

secondsun (195377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274266)

I may be misremembering, but Sun's involvement turned out to be Sun buying the IP they had licensed for Java from SCO so the JDK could be legally and unquestionably GPL'd.

Re:The awesome part about this (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274412)

It would be horrible PR, and would be ammo for any future anti-monopoly lawsuits. But it won't happen, they would have put enough padding between them an SCO so that they could explain it away as coincidence even if it was a conspiracy.

Besides, I'm more inclined to believe Daryl is just one of those pump/sell/burn CEO's that tear the company apart for money instead of trying to revive it.

Re:The awesome part about this (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274490)

McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury

Obviously, you've never been busted, or had much experience with "the system".

Criminal charges come like a tidal wave for larger offenses. Its never, "The state vs McBride on one count of perjury". Its the state vs McBride for a laundry list of ranges of crimes, and odds are one of em will be good enough.

Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

That is utter bullshit. At least where I live, if I go to the local Barnes and Noble, and look in their computer section, there is the Linux section, and under it are the books on "UNIX".

Even though McBride is backwards in his evidence collecting, the same result could be said by a nutcase like him. That Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX that you can't even find a programming UNIX book, you have to look between the Linux books for a UNIX book.

I simply can't wait until this is over. This has been going on how long now? Like 6-7 years or so. My employers have lost some significant amount of money over this thing while I waste my time commenting/reading on slashdot about this train wreck.

Its also interesting to note that chages against companies take about an order of magnatude longer to try than those against an individual. For business, this is just part of the game of business. Even when you lose. as in theory McBride has done here, he has been able to finacially gain what? What have the lawyers and other people part of the pump and dump scam gained as a result of this?

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273954)

Darl's not a technical guy; for all we know he really does believe it.

I'm not sure which is worse; a mindless zealot, or a flaming hypocrite.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274588)

True non-technical people like him might believe Linux is Unix, but to say that there are no books on Linux is complete idiocy. All it takes is to go a bookstore or amazon.com. Either he is completely out of touch with reality or he is desperately lying through his teeth.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274034)

More civilized countries ended slavery without war.

Really.... (-1, Flamebait)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274106)

Or did they simply off-shore their slavery like Great Britain?

Re:Really.... OT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274214)

And war did not end Communism. It's still alive in China.

Re:Really.... OT (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274310)

China's no more communist than Tony Blair's a socialist.

3)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274152)

The only reason I can think he said this:

1) He actually believes it.
2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.


3) Microsoft told him to, and it doesn't matter much anyway, since both SCO and Novel are now MS subsidiaries.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (2, Informative)

tiocsti (160794) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274226)

Unix has moved from being an operating system, and in modern times is a set of standards, so basically he's right, linux is unix -- it complies to most of the standards people find relevant. There's no shared code with system v though, nor is it certified (it's unix, but not UNIX).

This does not mean that linux is based on sco or novell code, though. Not all UNIXes are; for example, OS X is also unix, although in the case of leopard it is actually certified as being so, but as in linux, does not share any code with system v (that i'm aware of, anyways).

So yes, he's right, linux is an implementation of unix. It's not a copy of the source, though. That's like saying glibc is a copy of microsoft's libc because they both conform to the ansi standard (ok bad example, because microsoft doesn't conform to the standard in various ways).

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (2, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274626)

But the Open Group is responsible for licensing the name "Unix" and setting the compatibility standards, not SCO. Basically SCO and Open Group were shell companies so that AT&T, IBM, HP, SUN, Novell and other Unix licensers would not get in trouble for anti-trust violations by holding the other companies hostage for technology they all shared.

Daryl is a classic case of the low-level lackey trying to be the tail wagging the dog. That's why Novell is so quick to put them in their place with extreme malice. They're supposed to be "holding the money" for the much bigger companies and they got a small amount of coin to do so. They just bit the hands that feed them. We need a law against technology companies in Texas or Utah!

Yea right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273694)

Just like McBride is a copy of McDonald

Eh? (4, Informative)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273698)

I have a copy of 'Beginning Linux Programming' from Wrox. Doesn't say UNIX anywhere. Hey guys, if you want me to testify I'd be happy to fly over. All expenses paid of course.

How to program Linux (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274128)

I don't know about How to Program Linux, but there's this record in my library's catalog for Linux programming by example [fairfax.va.us] , by Kurt Wall (2000), and here's The Linux Kernel Book [amazon.com] , by Remy Card, Eric Dumas, and Franck Mevel (1998).

Re:Eh? (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274184)

In fact, I challenge Darl to find one book talking about programming UNIX in general written in last 10 years for a dozen dedicated to Linux programming. There are just too many platform-specific libraries and tools (such as Qt, gcc, python) needed to create any useful application. Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX.

Re:Eh? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274406)

Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX.
Or to be more specific, ones that are fully POSIX Compliant [wikipedia.org] and certified. It really does make OpenSolaris tempting...

Re:Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274428)

Working extensively with multiple platforms, I can say that basically all the platform-specific tools and libraries you mention are not platform specific at all. GCC can be compiled for most any distribution and actually, Sun even offers gcc 3.4.2 (or maybe 3.4.3) as a download in their open-source packages for Solaris. The same goes for freely available install packages of GCC on HP-UX and AIX. Not to mention, I believe you can even build a GCC for Windows and MAC.

I know Python is also not platform specific. My friend did several Python scripts that we used on Windows systems. It looks like Qt is essentially the same way. So, what were all those platform specific tools and libraries again? If think it would be different if you talked about the Sun C Compiler or the standard C compilers provided for HP-UX or AIX. The fact is that a lot of the "UNIX" operating systems are trying to move closer to Linux toolsets because it helps foster compatibility and makes it easier for them to try to entice people to switch to their platforms.

Contradiction=bad things (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273704)

IANAL, but if I've ever learned anything from Mock Trial in high school, it's that you never want to contradict what you say on the stand with what you've ever said publicly or under oath. See, it tends to give the impression that you're changing your story, and if the court doesn't know which one to think is true, they're just gonna ignore you.

Re:Contradiction=bad things (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274384)

Unless it is under certain circumstances, it is not illegal, in general, to lie. If it were, we would all be doomed.

Hopefully (2)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273718)

Nobody will tell Darl about POSIX, or the poor guy will have a heart attack of litigation-happy joy!

Re:Hopefully (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274464)

POSIX, that thing that Linux isn't?

lol (1)

smash (1351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273728)

  • one [amazon.com]
  • two [linuxtoday.com]
  • should i continue? or is there already abundant proof out there that darl is a lying sack of shit?

oh, also... (1)

smash (1351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273794)

... anyone who has administered a Linux machine and/or coded on more than one breed of *nix knows that there's a fuckload of difference as far as programming goes between say, Linux and Solaris or FreeBSD.

Re:oh, also... (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273888)

Not just that, but the things that are the same are that way because of language and POSIX standardization, and apply in many instances to operating systems that are not Unix-like.

There's more Linux books than Unix books (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273768)

The thing is, his bookstore argument isn't even right. If you go to a bookstore, there are scores of Linux books and relatively few Unix books. If anything, you would probably find Unix books in the Linux section and not the other way around. Linux is driving Unix and anyone who doesn't see that has a hole in their head the size of JFK's.

The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore and see it for himself. He will see Linux everywhere, and no Unix, and probably conclude that McBride is a liar. You may as well just end the trial at that point, but it will drag on enough for the judge to probably humiliate McBride a bit.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books (4, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273906)

"I'm sorry, your honor. I wasn't clear. I was referring to a 1980 bookstore."

Oblig. Strange Brew Reference (3, Funny)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274344)

Claude Elsinore: And I'd like to point out that these tapes have not been faked, or altered in any way. In fact they have time coding, which is very hard to fake.

The Judge: Would you please explain for the court "time coding."

Claude Elsinore: Well, uh, just because I don't know what it is, it doesn't mean I'm lying.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273908)

OK now: I did list two of my Linux programming books, so that shoots McBride's (or at least whoever quoted him) argument. But let's not partisanship blind us - there's more Unix programming books than Linux programming. I'm talking "Programming", not system administration or such.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274284)

The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore and see it for himself. He will see Linux everywhere, and no Unix, and probably conclude that McBride is a liar.
It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274484)

Novell's lawyers should give him a gift the next day of every single Linux book they found at Barnes and Noble. It would be quite a stack...

Perjury (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273802)

Too bad perjury isn't a crime anymore after Slick Willie Clinton got away with it. Otherwise maybe Darl could have a new roomate named Bubbah who thinks he has pretty eyes.

Re:Perjury (2, Interesting)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274198)

The standard for perjury is higher than meerly lying under oath, otherwise every he-said vs she-said case would be followed up with prosecution of the looser. Witnesses lie quite often. Usually all that happens is that opposing counsel trips them up under cross, or introduces evidence that contradicts their testimony. They loose credibility with the judge/jury, but they don't go to jail.

The grand jury rightly refused to indict Clinton because the lie he got caugh in, while crappy and self-serving, wasn't sufficiently germane to the facts of Paula Jones's suite against him. Lying about something that happened years later, in another state, with a different woman had too little bearing on the claims presented in Jones v. Clinton to warrant a perjury charge.

Re:Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274410)

Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a popular Democrat President. Nothing at all. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Re:Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274534)

I think you mean Slick Scooter Libby. But hey, a blowjob is just as evil as conspiring to bankrupt the nation and send its best people to their deaths in an unnecessary war, innit?

"Linux Programming" book (3, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273806)

Well, I actually do have a book on how to program Linux: "Beginning Linux Programming" (Matthew and Stones), in all its red glory here on my shelf. Now I don't know whether the summary quoted McBride very well and I don't have much time to investigate right now, but if he did say what he said, that was pretty silly.

I also have the "Teach yourself Linux Programming in 24 hours, did not read it much, though. However, it exists, and more Linux programming literature exists, too.

Dear Mr. McBride, (2, Funny)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273808)

I write to inform you that the product you are bullshitting about is not Linux, but GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

As you are most certainly aware, GNU/Linux stands for GNU is Not Unix. Ergo, Linux is not Unix.

Thank you for your time. My lawyers will send you the bill for mine.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274532)

Linux is a kernel. GNU is the userland.

We're comparing SYSVX kernel to the Linux kernel. They said they found SYSVX code in OpenSolaris, and that would be in the kernel. Nobody gives a rats ass if someone happens to have a stolen line of code in ls, cd, grep, etc. That would be bad, but that's not really what this case is about.

The kernel is the most important part; the userland is replaceable. We could replace our userland tools with BSD ones and re-license them in a heartbeat.

I figured they would do this (3, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273832)

In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony. Even though the facts have been proved this theory to be wrong, this is EXACTLY what they have been waiting for.

Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.

They will use the similarities to confuse the jury who have no clue about the history of "*NIX* beginning with Multics. I certainly hope Novell is ready.

PARANOID FEAR: Novell is working with SCO to establish in a court of law, by losing, that Linux is the property of Novell.

Judge only (2, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273934)

No jury.

Re:I figured they would do this (4, Informative)

CyberZen (97536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273970)

No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

Re:I figured they would do this (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274014)

Too many people have taken the deal with MS the wrong way. Novell really tried to make both camps happy by making Linux and Windows play nicely, but people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I understand that there is danger in dancing with the devil, but when you have asbestos underwear and lots of experience under your belt, you are not always foolish for doing so.

Novell contributes SO much to the Linux user experience, and under F/OSS licenses, that to think that they are the devil's gardener are foolish. They are not trying to undermine Linux. They are not trying to OWN Linux any more than Red Hat is trying to "Own" it with their subscription model and additional tools that are not open source at the moment (read: RHN/Satellite server, etc).

Right now, Novell are the good guys. They are developing more for the casual desktop user than Red Hat and even Canonical. They are also not forgetting the big iron guys, as Z series IBM boxes hardly run RHEL but often run SUSE.

Re:I figured they would do this (3, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274356)

people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I would like to see an example where a "big" company did business with Microsoft and did not end up selling out or going out of business. Even DEC caved into Microsoft,

Re:I figured they would do this (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274536)

This is not to say Novell will not somehow implode due to the bad publicity of the deal or perhaps some of the minutia embedded in the legal documents, however Novell has money, experience and a good product. They were/are not trying to scuttle Linux to somehow make MS proud or destroy open source.

Many people on board with Novell drank the kool-aid on Linux and GNU tools. If they lost Linux they would lose a TON. They contribute to OSS projects, and even pay their devs to work on them for a week as part of their main job. A lot of really cool things are coming out of Novell for Linux. The Gnome and KDE projects depend on them for many cool things, including the task bar panel in KDE.

I am not saying that Novell can slay the dragon or that it was the BEST business decision, but that it was not a case of Novell trying to subvert OSS like so many people think.

Re:I figured they would do this (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274516)

Novell is a good company, their deal with MS just makes people nervous due to MS' past abuse and dirty tricks towards the companies they were working with.

Re:I figured they would do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274080)

"In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony."

There is no jury. It is a bench trial, and Judge Kimball will decide the outcome.

Re:I figured they would do this (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274276)

Not only as mentioned that there is no Jury, but also:

Remember that Novell already got money from MS for their interop deal. Wonder what happens if Novell can now chase after MS and sue them due to the interop deal if something pops up as a result of this trial? Novell has a lot to go after in this case, especially if they force SCO to liquidate and/or take control of SCO.

Huge, enormously huge win for Novell on this case. Not to mention for Linux in general.

This is not Toyota and ford. This is like comparing Unix to Linux, which they are not the same. Get it right. Or perhaps this is similar to comparing two unrelated objects to eachother in an abstract fashion. You can stretch things only so far.

How to program in Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273862)

OK, I couldn't find a book called exactly "How to Program in Linux", but there are a few books here that might be of interest. [amazon.co.uk]

It is not a "copy"... just a clone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273878)

I do know that slashdot is a place of news for nerds. But those f***ers are misleading the court and the (non-nerds among) public by using the vague word "copy". So please let me state a few obvious things.

Linux is a clone of UNIX. It offers the same interface to applications as what UNIX offered. Not even a single line of code is derived from UNIX's proprietary codebase. So please f*** off.

McBride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273880)

Supplies a reason as to why drugs should not be legalized.

Linux (mostly) follows the open group. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273882)

The problem is that its a big difference between being a copy of Unix and being a copy of a specific unix implementation. While linux in many places conforms to the standards making up Unix 93/95/98/2003 its not a verbatim copy of anybody elses implementation of those standards.

This looks very much like an ongoing effort do mislead people about what Unix really is. Somone should sue for slander since its a very rough accusation. That Novell seems to let this slide makes me very worried about their real intentions.

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html [unix.org]

Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group. (3, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273996)

In other words, what he's saying is the equivalent of "Toyota is a copy of Ford. See, they all have four wheels and an engine, and you drive them with a steering wheel and a couple of pedals! And they both have doors and seats, too!"

Linux IS a copy of UNIX (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23273926)

But it's not an exact copy, and according to SCO's internal memos, there's no copyright infringement found in the Linux codebase.

Also, I hope something comes from SCO making false corporate filings - it'd be nice to see a few of them get some criminal penalties from this.

Re:Linux IS a copy of UNIX (1)

Arctech (538041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274218)

I don't think you can technically call something that has been reverse engineered a copy per se, but yeah, no matter what semantics you split it with there's positively no Unix code contained within Linux.

update (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23273956)

Hey guys, just a heads up: DON'T USE THE SECOND FLOOR BATHROOM. I ate at taco bell (plus drank a 6-pack of bud light) last night and I feel (and smell) like I was buttfucked by a garbage truck. Oh fuck, I think I'm going to shit my pants. gtg.

There are plenty of books on how to program Linux (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274004)

They are right there, next to the books on how to program in Solaris, HP-UX, and, of course, SCO.

What's amazing and sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274012)

I'm working at a really hot startup in the storage space. The product is all Linux based, but that's under the hood.

The VP of Marketing made the exact same claim that McBride. In fact, he went far further by repeating all of SCO's main claims. And that Linux stifles innovation, etc., etc.

Honestly, the guy is on crack. And it sounds like Microsoft is feeding these clowns this stuff, because he is basically Microsoft's b*tch.

This Just In (1)

Skeetskeetskeet (906997) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274038)

OS2/Warp is a copy of Windows 3.1.... Film at 11.

Re:This Just In (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274400)

actually, you would want to say OS2/Warp is a copy of WINNT,(MS could not get NT out fast enough so they released win 3.1)

hey McBride (1)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274042)

when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it,

um O'Reilly begs to differ http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596009588/ [oreilly.com]

Didn't We Settle This Already? (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274046)

I thought we settled this dispute with a precedent. I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"? Comes out you can clone something without "copying" it. If Daryl said something to the tune of "Linux is a Clone of Unix" he *may* have been ever so slightly closer. But saying it's a copy, is showing his ignorance or his idea that most of the world is ignorant and will believe him.

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already? (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274370)

This is the current situation of US business at the moment. Which is that companies want more than anything to use the current patent system to try to hold the industry hostage while they do a "make money for nothing" business model... Meaning if the system worked the way they want it to work, we would still be paying money to the family of the caveman that developed the rolling wheel.... Talk about stupid...

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274552)

I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"?

Wrong. IBM did not try to sue "clone" makers, because IBM already lost an antitrust case on that issue over mainframes. There were IBM mainframe clones, from Amdahl, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and National Semiconductor. Hitachi still makes IBM mainframe clones, and they run IBM mainframe software, including IBM's OS/390.

What he meant... (1)

mbaGeek (1219224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274048)

Mr. McBride obviously meant that there are no Linux books in the SCO company bookstore

My local B&N seems to be full of "Linux" books though ...

It's like saying a Ford is a Chevrolet... (1)

bagofbeans (567926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274078)

...because after all, the oparating controls are essentially the same.

...or Lockjaw is Tetris (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274206)

If Linux is a copy of Unix, does that make Lockjaw [pineight.com] a copy of Tetris?

Yes, McBride... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274132)

... and you're a "copy" of Warren Buffett.

The obvious solution... (3, Funny)

Vexler (127353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274268)

...is to treat Darl McBridge the same way some people dealt with Alan Ralsky: Send him as many Linux programming books as we can.

O rly? (3, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274290)

I realize this is a bit redundant now, but Darl, you're a fuckin' idiot. [amazon.com]

Linux Programming Books (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23274312)

The lawyers should send one of their clerks to the local technical book store and have them buy every book that says Linux Programming in the title (Amazon shows plenty) or have them overnighted from Amazon, and bring them in tomorrow.

I guess this book I'm looking at is imaginary. (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274346)

Seriously, evidence of a section of books at a bookstore is not evidence that something is a copy of something else, it's just evidence that the bookstore only has so much room for headers. Otherwise I would have to complain my local B&N doesn't carry a Ruby Programming section.... or Perl Programming section. Hell, those must be copies of Java programming since there is a Java Programming section. Get real Darl.

Maybe he hasn't been to a book store in a while? (1)

Reece400 (584378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274350)

Like 20 years ago a while?? [indigo.ca] I think I'd find it hard to believe someone who seems to be making up obviously false 'facts' as he goes...

Incorrect. (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274486)

Cross out "copy of", and you get a correct statement:

Linux is a Unix.

As are FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris and Minix. Most of which borrow at least some concepts from System V, but barely a single line of code. (OK, to be a pedant, they are Unix-like OSes, but they are compatible OSes.)

Does this mean SCO plans on suing for compatibility? Standards, even? Even if SCO did own the Unix copyright, there would be no grounds for suing based on something that works in a similar way.

Things Never To Say (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274496)

To a zombie: Eat Me!

To a loan shark: I'm a little short right now...

To a woman: Yeah, they do make you look a little heavy, why do you ask?

To a lawyer: We have evidence....

All of these have ... consequences.

Yeah, so ... (1)

mshmgi (710435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274538)

I seem to recall that Windows 3.x was nothing more than a copy of Mac OS 4 ... but you didn't hear anybody complaining about THAT, did you?

Is a Chevy a copy of a Ford? (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274578)

Yes they are both automobiles, so according to Darl McBride's logic, one must be a copy of the other?

To claim that Linux is a copy of Unix, and to claim that there are no programming books for Linux as proof, is absolutely absurd.

I'm no attorney, but could this testimony be considered perjury even though the testimony was given at a civil trial and not a criminal trial?

Darl McBride belongs in jail.

-ted

Circular logic (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274602)

This is from McBride's own website [darlmcbride.com] (ego much?)

From 2005: "But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we concentrated our efforts."

Well the courts will decide that. "'Isn't SCO just all about defeating Linux?' Of course we are innovating and we absolutely want to defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other competitor."

Following is usual FUD about how Linux costs more in the long run because of (reaches back to pull numbers out of ass) subscription fees. And of course Microsoft has been a great contributor to SCO's fight [eweek.com] against Linux.

But here's the kicker:

"SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of high-end development work that has created a proven track record of stability and reliability. With our latest release, OpenServer provides support for up to 32 processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte file sizes, and full support for multi-threaded applications. Linux is still young from an operating system perspective. I would challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head. While Linux may appeal to some as the sleek, new "racer" on the track, the experienced IT professional will truly see the real power under the hood when they test the UNIX kernel and the tried and true power of UNIX combined with the new capabilities of SCO OpenServer 6."

Now the obvious: If Linux = UNIX, then how can their kernel be superior? There's NOTHING on this page saying Linux copied UNIX in whole or part.

Then some more FUD--I actually laughed at this figure:

"Unfortunately for Linux, mi2g also confirmed that the Linux operating system has become somewhat of a hacker's paradise. In a study conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.

Again, how can you be oh-so superior in security if your product is identical to Linux? You can't have it both ways. BTW, I tried to find this figure in context on mi2g site, but got this error from the search box:

ht://Dig error htsearch detected an error. Please report this to the webmaster of this site. The error message is:

Unable to read word database file
Did you run htmerge?

Hmmm. Maybe they got hacked....

We have absolute proof that ..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23274622)

....Daryl has a mental deficiency.

The question now is who's been paying for the mental circus of SCO?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>