×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

154 comments

wow, a SCO story? (1, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358530)

I ahd hoped we were done. Espcially with SCO nonstories.

Company hires guy to looks for something.
He doesn't find it,
SCO pays as agreed.

sheesh.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358620)

Read this part to understand why it is still relevent (there are, after all, still cases pending):

So, my head is spinning, because what I'm thinking is: does this demonstrate that SCO knew there was no basis for their copyright infringement claims against IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and the world, at least by 2004? We'd have to do discovery on the matter to know for sure, but if they deliberately buried evidence, I would imagine it could impact damages due to SCO's victims, not just from SCO but conceivably from SCO's lawyers as well, should it be established that the litigation was frivolous and SCO knew it way back in 2004. I'm sure SCO's lawyers will have a long song and dance about it to deny it all, but it's certainly a huge red flag to me.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (3, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358764)

That's all well and good, but all this would prove is that SCO knew that one guy they contracted couldn't find a basis for their claims, not that they knew the lawsuit was baseless. Or do you think that SCO's lawyers are the only ones that have ever shopped around for multiple expert witnesses before keeping the one that best supported their claim?

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358926)

Or perhaps they just stopped looking... If so, they could be in more trouble. This is why more discovery is needed. Not that there is anything left to get from them...

Re:wow, a SCO story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359148)

If they only evidence that SCO had for their lawsuit was that one guy they hired could not back their claims, it's pretty safe to say their suit would have been thrown out a lot quicker.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359138)

That's all well and good, but all this would prove is that SCO knew that one guy they contracted couldn't find a basis for their claims, not that they knew the lawsuit was baseless.

I think the point is the guy they contracted found evidence that there was no correlation between contents of SCO and Linux source trees.

It's not a matter of him not finding anything; it's a matter of him finding something; that is, evidence that would have been beneficial to their adversary in court, that they did not provide to the court.

In other words, legal misconduct. When you are subpoena'd for evidence, you have to make all evidence available, not just evidence that favors your viewpoint; if you had intentionally destroyed records/evidence because they don't favor your viewpoint, then that's misconduct that could increase their liability.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (5, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359390)

You do not have to produce your expert's analyses to the other side or the court under the Federal rules.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360012)

That isn't evidence. The evidence is the source code. You are talking about analysis of evidence, which you aren't required to hand over.

Pinning this up as a "win" would be paramount to asking why NASA is continuing to look for habitable planets when an expert (me), has spent countless days looking up at the sky, and I found absolutely none. If I wrote that in a report to NASA, and they paid me for it, could I then sue the government for wasting tax dollars on a frivolous pursuit to find something I told them didn't exist back in 1970?

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358898)

Forgive me, but I thought SCO was frivolous long before 2004. Ohhhhh - maybe about 1994? If I'm going to be halfway serious, I'll have to admit that I didn't even know who or what SCO was until around 2000. Maybe 1998, certainly no earlier. But, with each and every new headline, I just got more and more puzzled about the whole mess. I mean - time and time again, over the years, someone points to some snippet of code in Linux, and hollers "AHH-HA!" And, Torvalds and company look at the snippet, and tell the world, "Oh, we didn't need that anyway, we'll take it out, just to make everyone happy, even though it doesn't really resemble Unix at all." The whole thing has been a freaking soap opera, in which nothing ever happens, but the same actors get up on stage day after day after day after day, making motions as if they think they matter to someone. SCO - the soap opera that should have been canceled before it premiered. Days of Our Lives had more action - and you could stop watching it for five years, and pick it right up again!

Argument from ignorance fallacy (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359038)

Read this part to understand why it is still relevent (there are, after all, still cases pending):

So, my head is spinning, because what I'm thinking is: does this demonstrate that SCO knew there was no basis for their copyright infringement claims...

It does not.

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [wikipedia.org]

Re:Argument from ignorance fallacy (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359098)

You are stealing my material. I'm the one that's been arguing based on structured logical conventions lately.

Re:Argument from ignorance fallacy (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359320)

You are stealing my material. I'm the one that's been arguing based on structured logical conventions lately.

Sue him!

Re:Argument from ignorance fallacy (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359450)

You are stealing my material. I'm the one that's been arguing based on structured logical conventions lately.

Can I get a license for your material? :-)

Re:Argument from ignorance fallacy (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359616)

That would also be logically incoherent, as there is much prior art! I mean it's a minority of course, but the minority has done a lot of work....

Re:Argument from ignorance fallacy (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359908)

What a bunch of words. You can't file a lawsuit resting on accusations substantiated only by your own inability to falsify them!

IMHO, logical fallicies are usually useless as applied to real world arguments. Would you like to hear all about why I think "no true Scotsman" is being inappropriately applied more often than not? Oh, bummer, I thought sure you would.

Irrelevant conclusion fallacy (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360286)

What a bunch of words. You can't file a lawsuit resting on accusations substantiated only by your own inability to falsify them! IMHO, logical fallicies are usually useless as applied to real world arguments. Would you like to hear all about why I think "no true Scotsman" is being inappropriately applied more often than not? Oh, bummer, I thought sure you would.

Here are some more words you may like: "Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question." ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi [wikipedia.org]

Note that in this discussion the issue would be:
(1) One consultant says he did not find anything.
(2) One poster wondered if this proved that SCO knew there was nothing.
(3) I argued "no", that (1) was insufficient information regarding what SCO knew.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359108)

Fie, it's a minor legal issue and is no longer but remotely nerdy, nor does it any longer have an impact in technology or the industry. At this point its just a company trying to put out their pants.

"For the sake of full disclosure, I was hired by SCO for a month in 2004 as a consultant and potential testifying expert witness in this case. The code analysis had already been under way for a while by other consultants on the case. My CodeMatch tool for measuring source code correlation was fairly new at that time. I was really excited and saw this as an opportunity to prove my tools and “make my reputation in this field.” The SCO attorneys gave me some code samples from SCO UNIX and Linux to compare. CodeMatch chugged along for days before generating a report showing very little correlation. The attorneys thanked me, paid me my very generous retainer (that they had put into my contract), and I never heard from them again."

It in now way shows the SCO has no basis in their claim. It only shows a guy with a tool he wrote did't find a match in the sample he was given.

Like I said, it's a minor legal issue that will have no impact on the industry.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359150)

Yup. There are some fairly serious legal implications for a lot of people if this scenario is deemed true and taken to full length in the courts.

One example that comes to mind is, perhaps Mr. Mcbride perjured himself. (this is speculation as I have not read the entire SCO trial transcripts)

Re:wow, a SCO story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359256)

I would say that there is a high probability of Mcbride perjuring himself.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358756)

It's the difference between going to court because you mistakenly believed the other guy is infringing and going to court knowing full well that the other guy isn't infringing. The first is bullying and unethical, but legal; the same can't be said for the second.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358842)

Was there ever any doubt that SCO knew full well that there was no infringing code in the Linux kernel? I think the matter was settled when the only evidence they could produce was errno.h.

You have to know what the accusation is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358982)

You have to know what the accusation is before you can accuse someone.

Didn't you work that one out on your own?

Re:You have to know what the accusation is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359872)

No you don't. For example. You. You bastard. How could you?

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358838)

Among other things, if accurate, it would mean that SCO witnesses committed perjury in depositions, affidavits, and testimony.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358958)

Among other things, if accurate, it would mean that SCO witnesses committed perjury in depositions, affidavits, and testimony.

And you could sue them. After all, they probably have more assets than SCO at this point. :)

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359850)

Perjury isn't a liability issue, it's a criminal issue. If found guilty of either perjury or suborning perjury, Darl McBride could find himself in PMITA prison.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359172)

You're missing a step:

Company hires guy to looks for something.

He doesn't find it.

SCO pays as agreed.

SCO fails to disclose this as a material fact in the case.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360210)

Well, given that SCO failed to find any evidence to show to the court in 2005-2010, it seem a bit redundant for them to need to disclose that neither could they find any evidence in 2004!

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359316)

I was also. We all know that SCO lied. It also killed Kennedy, has the bodies of space aliens in a freezer, holds the secret patents on a 100 MPG carburetor, and causes cancer.

I mean really folks it is over only wake the zombie formerly known as SCO when if they look like they could cause problems. At this point it is called whipping a dead horse.

Re:wow, a SCO story? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359700)

No, at this point it's called "having sent the dead horse to the glue factory, we're now after the people who sold it to us (who still have money) misrepresented as a living horse."

(much better than a car analogy)

Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (4, Interesting)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358532)

It's probably due to some contract thing - but imagine how many fewer annoying articles about SCO and Darl would have been avoided had this guy gone public years ago.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358604)

> imagine how many fewer annoying articles about SCO and Darl would have been avoided had this guy gone public years ago.

not on slashdot the FOX NEWS of tech... ;)

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359648)

you forgot to add that slashdot is also the mouthpiece of SCO..

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358930)

I feel very confident saying that if the guy spoke up sooner, there probably would have been MORE annoying articles about SCO and Darl. First, whatever articles his comments appeared in. Then, whatever reply/rebuttal articles were written by SCO's PR team and the journalists in their pocket (like Maureen O'Gara). Then whatever counter-rebuttals might have been written by people like PJ at Groklaw, etc.

It's sort of like this post. There may or may not be replies to it, but nobody ever replies to a post which isn't written. Hence, just by writing the post, I've created another 'discussion' tree, which might end up having no depth (just this reply) or might have several levels of replies.

Same for if this guy had spoken up sooner.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358970)

I wasn't aware that non-disclosure agreements or contracts of any kind protected someone from revealing if they knew criminal conduct was going on. These guys knew full well that SCO's attorneys and expert witnesses were perjuring themselves, and should have come forward then.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359208)

These guys knew full well that SCO's attorneys and expert witnesses were perjuring themselves, and should have come forward then.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever these guys read or even knew the content of the expert witness' testimony? Attorneys rarely make testimony in cases they are involved with; it is unlikely any attorneys perjured themselves.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360028)

Right, they would have suborned perjury, rather than committing it themselves.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (3, Informative)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359730)

And what criminal conduct did he know about? Did he read transcripts of the trial and see where they had taken his report and lied about it? He is/was not qualified to comment on the reports from other so-called investigators unless he'd actually read their reports. All he knew was that his study didn't support what they were saying, but that doesn't say anything about other studies that may have been conducted.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (2, Insightful)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359980)

It's only wise to expose criminal conduct when you hare irrefutable proof of such. SCO could just as easily argue that he was incompetent at his job, and then pursue him for violating a NDA. And given that his statement is such a blow to their case, I think we can all reasonably expect them to do so.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359182)

"It's probably due to some contract thing"

Clearly he didn't understand the intent of his contract, even if he understood the letter of it. After all, he didn't give SCO what they wanted to hear.

One of the good guys, by the sound of it.

Re:Wonder why he didn't speak up sooner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359244)

They would have just hired HBGary to discredit him.

Shocked (2)

iconic999 (1295483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358606)

I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

Re:Shocked (2)

RavenLrD20k (311488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358966)

Next time Ground yourself AND the power supply before you touch things inside your PC.... And use a grounding strap for the love of God!

Re:Shocked (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359134)

Grounding yourself will make you a good path to ground. Grounding the power supply well won't help, as it would blow before you touch it if it was faulty in a way that that mattered. When working on live electronics, you often do not want a grounding strap.

Re:Shocked (1)

RavenLrD20k (311488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359608)

ok...Two things:

#1: WOOOOOOOOSH!

#2: I said nothing of working with live electronics.

The capacitors in a power supply will always hold a charge from the first time it is powered up. You want the power supply grounded on a powered down machine to make sure that any discharge that might occur goes out the grounded outlet. (there are special cables made just for this purpose that do not have the neutral and powered wires within them, just the ground) Then you want to strap yourself to the case to make sure that any static charge that you would be carrying goes out the same path before you touch any of the components. Granted, I do not always follow this procedure and I've yet to burn out a single one of my procs or components by not following it, but when I'm getting paid to service other people's equipment you can bet the farm I'm going to follow proper procedure, lest I become responsible for replacing equipment that could easily be blamed on improper tech procedure.

This whole paragraph is taken from basic A+ certification course material.

Re:Shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359368)

Next time Ground yourself AND the power supply before you touch things inside your PC.... And use a grounding strap for the love of God!

I found that the 'ground' pin doesn't seem to do anything anyways. I mean... I think the ground pin must be like the emperors' new clothes or something, just a phantom pin for wall out manufacturers to make more money. I'm sure in a few years there'll be a new 4-pin outlet that will be all the rage.

Here's how I busted the myth that 'grounding' carries any electricity....

Someone lent me a digital voltmeter so I checked the voltage of the outlet pins... from big pin on black probe little pin on red probe... 120 volts ac. little pin on black probe big pin on red probe, 120 volts, ok cool. Round pin on black probe, little pin on red probe, 0 volts; little pin on black probe round pin on red probe, 0 volts; Big pin on black probe round pin on red probe, 0 volts, Round pin on red probe, big pin on black probe 0 volts.

Seriously, if ground really does anything, it would actually do something right?

Re:Shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360220)

So you discovered a floating ground pin. Go complain to the incompetent electrician who wired the outlet. Try it again on another outlet that is wired correctly and you'll see AC voltage relative to the ground pin on the hot.

Isn't that what the Linux community said all along (4, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358608)

No real surprise there, just verification. SCO got itself in a tight spot financially and was looking for a scapegoat, with many SCO contributors moving to linux at the time linux made it convenient to blame, the backing of big companies contributing to Linux made them perfect target to get money. Their entire case was based on the theory that if people who used to work on SCO were now working on Linux then they must copied code...it sounded feasible to them and I assume their hope was that it would be seen feasible enough to slip through without much investigation.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358710)

We all knew that SCO had no real claims years ago when we started hearing things from them like "look at errno.h - they are teh same!". It was obvious to anybody paying any attention at all that it was a shakedown from the get-go - their one mistake was picking IBM to shake down, whose policy has always been "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute", and who has a larger legal department than the US government. The fact that it took as long as it did for the inevitable outcome just shows how broken the US legal system (and IP law in particular) really is.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (0)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358808)

The fact that it took as long as it did for the inevitable outcome just shows how broken the US legal system (and IP law in particular) really is.

It doesn't help that the judges in the highest court in the land can be verifiably bought and seemingly, no repercussions whatsoever.

The US legal system is horribly, horribly broken...and every indication is its by intent. This has happened before. Part of the solution for Congress was to fire massive numbers of judges. This absolutely must be done again.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358912)

It doesn't help that the judges in the highest court in the land can be verifiably bought and seemingly, no repercussions whatsoever.

Please provide some support for this wild allegation. Something other than the fact that two of the Justices spoke at a conference sponsored by people you don't like who were (much) later involved peripherally in a case where you don't like how the Court ruled.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359048)

You mean the stories and undeclared income. Employment for family members shortly before a decision was given. So on and so on. Perhaps you should stay up on fairly recent news events.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359976)

You can't give a verifiable example.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358938)

This has happened before. Part of the solution for Congress was to fire massive numbers of judges.

when? who?

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359118)

Tried to quickly find a link. I honestly didn't spend much time on it. IIRC, it was during the later part of the 1800s.

The deal was, far too many judges were known to be corrupt and not following laws, like the US Constitution. Much like we see today. Congress said we'll fire you. The judges said that's not legal and we'll provide for an extremely protracted battle to ensure it never happens. Congress said fine. Congress then dissolved all the courts in which the judges in question presided. They then created new courts and then hired new judges for those courts. So technically they weren't fired - rather their courts simply went away.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359348)

poor use of hyperbole without any supporting references. sorry.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359816)

Just a nitpick, but if Congress did find a way to fire all those judges, it would be the President who would appoint new ones for Congress to confirm.

[citation needed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360154)

[citation needed]

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360284)

I think that happened in Star Wars, not US History.

Care to offer a shred of a citation to the events you're relating?

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359218)

>>>the judges in the highest court in the land can be verifiably bought

Still waiting for a citation.
Eh.
Maybe you heard this on Faux news, and have no evidence. Seems likely.

Re:Isn't that what the Linux community said all al (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358900)

Now, how many "revelations" have you read recently that made you go "duh!" at best? At worst, you didn't even care enough to read them in full.

It's not what you say or what a bunch of people say. Especially if they're the "adversary" in the legal battle. How long has everyone with a hint of knowledge questioned the alleged losses of the music industry due to P2P? How long has everyone who ever played a computer game questioned their influence on school shootings?

It doesn't count 'til someone from the other side has to admit that yes, their position was wrong.

In Other News (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358678)

Groklaw still alive.

Re:In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358814)

Groklaw still alive.

And Slashdot still gratuitously sending it traffic.

Re:In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359526)

You read TFA? Sucker.

At this rate, 'SCO' is going to become a term. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358718)

Just like how 'borked', or 'bork' has become.

sco term itself, will probably be anonymous with blatant greed, bastardry, skulduggery, more and relentless bastardry.

there are few other contenders to the title actually. however, one of them has a very common name as their name, and the other is hard to use as a term.

It's so borked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358740)

It was so borked it gave the word 'bork' a whole new borkness. To have compared the old 'bork' with the new, would've been insultingly borking to the word 'bork.'

Re:At this rate, 'SCO' is going to become a term. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358854)

So "you have been SCOed" becomes the term for "you have been trolled by lawyers to scare companies into not using your software?"

Re:At this rate, 'SCO' is going to become a term. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358894)

may be. but you may have to add 'unsuccessfully' in between 'have' and 'been'.

Re:At this rate, 'SCO' is going to become a term. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359000)

Yes, if you want to an infinitive split.

Re:At this rate, 'SCO' is going to become a term. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359008)

So instead of being "screwed, blued and tattooed" you will be "screwed, SCOed and SONYed." I like it.

Not enough to prove anything. (0)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358720)

He said he worked with a sample of both sections of code, supplied by SCO. Presumably SCO thought there was copying between the two, but unless the 'sample' he worked on was the entire code base all it shows is that one test didn't see copied code in that small subset.

So, his test may or may not have been convincing, even in that small sample, and certainly doesn't prove anything over the whole codeset.

Re:Not enough to prove anything. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358924)

It very clearly indicates they were shopping for an expert witness; meaning, shopping for specific testimony regardless of facts. Seemingly, this guy had ethics and didn't lie. By this same line of logic, seeming SCO's experts who did testify, knowingly did so for paychecks rather than merit of claim.

His tool chugged along for DAYS? (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358726)

DAYS? Really?

I worked for a company that wrote basis path testing and coverage tools, and would generate various metrics like cyclomatic complexity, module cohesion metrics, what not.

As a baseline we used Linux kernel sources. Also FreeBSD.

A full report took about 10 hours IIRC, this was in 1999.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358866)

Yes, days. After all, he also had to do OpenServer, System V, BSD, and Linux. Your 10 hours is already 1.5 days just for unning, (but not analyzing the result).

The reason he couldn't come forward sooner was likely a 2 or 5 year NDA agreement.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359110)

> The reason he couldn't come forward sooner was likely a 2 or 5 year NDA agreement.

except, the moment that SCO entered court to sue others making claims that he knew were false, he had a very easy legal out there. An NDA cannot prevent a person from exposing misconduct. If it could, then the Maffia would have long ago changed their Omerta oath into a formal NDA contract, and would bring suits against rats in civil court.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359322)

In 1999 a good home desktop was 200MHz Pentium i586 with 32MB RAM. In 2004, a good home desktop was a dual core 3.2GHz machine with 1GB. 8 CPU 200MHz servers became 4CPU 3.2GHz servers with hyperthreading, or up to 16 CPU with dual core Xeons. These servers cost what a base model home computer used to cost in 1999 ($2000, not the $400 of today), and scale linearly when you use multiple to do the job.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359628)

My home machine in 1999 was a 400MHz Celeron, which was far faster than the 266MHz P2 I was using at work (that machine which ran the code analysis in 10 hours).

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359868)

No one ran dual-core desktops at home in 2004. Multithreaded CPUs and multi-socket motherboards were common on the high end, but AMD and Intel's designs weren't even released yet; that is, NO ONE had them.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359578)

All he had to compare against is the code base SCO owned that they claimed was infringed upon, not the entire universe of Unix flavors.... and even then just kernels no need for X11 and drivers. But even if he did, there is no way it should have taken days to run.

The 10 hour mark I mentioned was on a Pentium 2 266 Mhz machine (I remember because I was put off by being given what was a slow machine even then). However we had the tools running on much more powerful Sun and Alpha workstations which took far less time. This was for an entire kernel source distro, drivers and all.

There is no way this analysis should have taken days.

Also If I have to do multiple OS's, I would use multiple machines. I am sure SCO would free up a workstation or 2 for this endeavor.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359142)

I thought exactly the same thing. I have written tools to look through and compare huge volumes of data that ran for hours, 2 decades ago.

days? yeah, good luck proving your self in the field.

Unless he was doing something I don't know about; which is a possibility.

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (3, Funny)

tbuskey (135499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359756)

Well, he was probably running on SCO, not Linux or FreeBSD.....

Re:His tool chugged along for DAYS? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360176)

Well we don't know how many continuous hours and how repeats and how many comparison variations the consultant ran the program. As an expert, I would hope he had more than a sample size of 1 and that it took into multiple factors like one comparison ignoring capitalization and spacing, etc. Still the basic point would be that the analysis would take a relatively short amount of time and their later whining for more time and delaying tactics of years shows that SCO knew their claims were flimsy.

Another point of view (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358862)

A "security analyst" wanted to make the big time by writing a program that would help out the SCO case. He sold SCO on this idea, but due to the lameness of his program it never produced the expected results. As such, SCO paid him off and moved on

There! No need for conspiracy theories at all.

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359230)

SCO in best Jon Lovitz voice: "yeah, that's the ticket!"

I am SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359086)

News that someone was unable to find stolen SCO code in Linux is almost as surprising as the news that Charlie Sheen had his kids taken away from him! I certainly never saw that coming!

Re:I am SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359774)

Charlie Sheen had his kids taken away from him!

Yo! Charlie! Your kids are over at Darl McBride's house . . . bring over a briefcase of cocaine, and some porn stars, and he will give them back to you, real soon . . .

Now, didn't this cocaine business get DeLorian into trouble, but . . . whatever . . . .

What an idiot! (1)

the saltydog (450856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359498)

He could have just made shit up that favored SCO, much like Marc Rochkind did, to keep the gravy train rolling; that way, he could have at least made enough for a couple of luxury watches...

P.S. Fuck you, Darl McBride. How's life in a cardboard box going for you? :-)

I want my $699 Linux IP license fee back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359524)

Fool me once, shame on you, as my aunt always told me. Where do I apply for a refund?

This has been known all along (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359568)

It seems mighty obvious that SCO's lawsuits aimed to drain Open Source company and community resources, and to spread FUD about the IP status of Open Source code. SCO knew all along that there was no way it could win, as even their own experts were telling them so, yet they went on for years and years fighting a fight that couldn't be won. That goes against the basic formula of a copyright/patent troll, because in those cases the driving motivator is profit, and lack thereof means there's no point to keep going.

As SCO's first lawsuit was against Microsoft, who immediately settled for millions, my tinfoil headgear is picking up some very suspicious signals...

Gee Golly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359698)

With all of the if, include and print statements I think Linux has copied my code too. I use the same ASCII characters too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...