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 Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the news-to-us dept.

Caldera 739

4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."

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

They must not! (5, Funny)

Braingoo (771241) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078760)

SCO must figure if we can't own them or buy them then they must not exist!

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078762)

fp bitch

May the trend continue... (5, Funny)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078765)

...ever downwards [yahoo.com] .

Misleading Graph (5, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078819)

Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart [yahoo.com] , you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.

Re:Misleading Graph (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078964)

Actually that was 6 month graph, stupid.

Re:Misleading Graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078995)

No, It's a trend tracked over a three month period.

The graph would have been misleading if it had labeled the three month period as longer interval.

(mod parent as troll)

Re:Misleading Graph (5, Funny)

dapyx (665882) | more than 10 years ago | (#10079017)

Nietzsche: God is dead
..a bit later:
God: Nietzsche is dead

SCO: Linux is dead.
..a bit later:
Linux: SCO is dead.

Re:May the trend continue... (1)

wmaker (701707) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078977)

gauranteed money selling SCO short, heh.

Re:May the trend continue... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10079023)

No! Not down! you must all pay your licensing fees [danamania.com] now! Help save SCO!

Backpedalling we a'go... (4, Interesting)

Godeke (32895) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078766)

OK, this part is off topic, but what the heck does "we broke our duck" mean? I'm sure it is some clever down under slang, but darned if I can decode it.

These lines are the kicker (and send exactly the opposite message from the summary here on /.):

Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP license.
But this urgency has dissipated with O'Shaughnessy pointing out that he had enough on his plate and would simply sell licenses as the opportunity arose.


Can anyone seriously say that they are really committed to victory in the courts if they have backpedaled that far on enforcing "their violated rights" down under?

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (5, Informative)

TwistedSquare (650445) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078836)

we broke our duck

I believe it's a cricket reference. Out for a duck is out for no runs, breaking your duck is actually getting somewhere (i.e. making some runs).

Duck Breaking..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078845)

"Breaking the duck" is a term used in cricket. Basically, it means getting your score above 0, so we can see that SCO has sold at least 1 SCOExtor.....er, SCOSource licence.

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (5, Informative)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078847)

what the heck does "we broke our duck" mean?

In Cricket, that funny game played by Poms, Kiwis and Aussies (among others) a zero score is known as a duck. To break one's duck means to have scored, at least, one run. So SCO are claiming to have sold, at least, one Linux "licence" down-under.

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (2, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078848)

what the heck does "we broke our duck" mean?

Slang derived from cricket. Broke our duck means to break zero. In cricket, to be out for zero is called "scoring a duck" or just "out for a duck".

Be very careful how you pronounce those phrases. Remember - the letter is 'd'. Definitely 'd'. Not any other letter. Oh no.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (1)

phauxfinnish (698087) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078873)

As was explained on Groklaw, in Cricket, when the Batsmen scores no points, its a duck. Thus they sold one or more licenses, breaking their duck.

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (1)

PerspexAvenger (671820) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078886)

Cricketing term, if I understand it right.

"Out for a duck" is going out for zero runs - "breaking your duck", by extension, is getting a lot of ducks in previous matches, then scoring a run in the latest.

And _then_ going out.... :-|

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (1)

mikieboy (661018) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078909)

to break your duck is to score a point, to get off zero points.
comes from cricket in that if you get "out" before you score any points then you are "out for a duck" if you get "out" on your first ball then it is a "golden duck"

Google is your friend (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078937)

Cricket page [purdue.edu]

It says If a batsman gets out without scoring any runs, he is said to be out for a duck.

Does breaking the duck means not being skunked, finally getting some scores on the board?

Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078945)

but what the heck does "we broke our duck" mean?

Its a cricket term. It means "previously we had 0 points now we have a point(s)."

BTW: (For you americans) Cricket is sorta like baseball, but with a higher IQ quota.
The game can go on for days, with lunch breaks. Its all very civilised.
Its is something we taught to the colonies, but the Americans couldnt be bothered to learn, so they took up rounders instead. Except they got the rules wrong and called it baseball.

I hope I didnt offend any one with that description :-)

and profit forecasters say (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078772)

"SCO doesn't exist"!

Indeed. (5, Funny)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078773)

I've been thinking this same thing. It's all relative, really. Just coneceptual ideals and data floating around in the aether, aspiring to the ideal form of Unix.

And for that matter, you guys don't exist when I close my eyes! Neener neener neener!

Re:Indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078980)

Actually, aether doesn't exist, either.

Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (5, Interesting)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078778)

Here's a question. IBM seems to be willing to go to the mat to defend open source and/or free software. Does this buy loyalty from you linux developers? Do you think they are getting more "good will" than they are spending in lawyers fees?

Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (5, Insightful)

kmankmankman2001 (567212) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078863)

Let's be clear - IBM isn't doing this out of any altruistic "we are the world" type of spirit. They are doing it because they believe it's good for their business and they will make money. That's what the business of business is and what their shareholders expect.

Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (5, Insightful)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078936)

Does IBM's actions buy loyalty?

Yes.

I don't think all of us will now put down our lives for IBM. If they ever tried to pull a fast one, I have no doubt everyone would turn on them real quick. But for the mean time they have proven themselves to be a friend. And many of us are in positions to make purchasing decisions. And while we may not all go out and buy Big Blue mainframes, when two comperable deals are on the table IBM now has a slight advantage.

And that's not the only reason to support FOSS. IBM is doing several things that are good for its business. They sell hardware, and hardware needs software. Better/cheaper software makes for more profit on hardware.

Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078947)

Lawyers' fees? Ha! IBM has more lawyers _on payroll_ than SCO has employees... or darl has braincells, for that matter.

Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (5, Insightful)

bmongar (230600) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078952)

I think they are getting 3 things.
1) They don't have to pay the billions in damage SCO wants.
2) Fear. It had previously been common computer world knowledge; "Don't mess with IBM's legal team". SCO is going in the face of the convention. I think IBM is reestablishing that.
3) Yes, they are getting good will.

Re:Do IBM's actions buy loyalty? (2, Informative)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078957)

Well, considering that they were once the "bad guy" company, not unlike the Microsoft of today to many here, I'd say they've turned things around quite well.

As long as they're defending open source with their lawyers, I can't imagine a sane person wanting to attack it--I've read the legal briefs, they don't miss a thing.

Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078968)

Quite simply: NO. IBM has their bottom line in concern here. It's nice that they are kicking SCO sorry little ass as it should be. However they don't diserve any loyalty for this. Praise mabye, but not loyalty

Doesn't Exist? (5, Funny)

duslow (648755) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078779)

What in the world have I been running over the last few years. Was the penguin just a figment of my imagination? Slashdot doesn't actually exist either? And Google?

Re:Doesn't Exist? (2, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078805)

If it doesn't exist, then what has all this fuss been about? :)

Re:Doesn't Exist? (5, Funny)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078856)

I guess my computer is running on the collective halucination of several million geeks worldwide. kickass!

Re:Doesn't Exist? (5, Funny)

ThogScully (589935) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078913)

It's like a Beowulf cluster of several million geeks' imaginations!
-N

I'm sorry...

They aren't following the normal pattern (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078783)

They should have gone with denial before, not after hate.

As my login prompt said to me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078784)

You don't exist, go away!

Weirdness (2, Funny)

plimsoll (247070) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078786)

I say this article doesn't exist:
Nothing to see here, move along

Edit: they fixed the link. Nevermind.
Edit: No they didn't, I'm still getting weird errors
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

excerpt of article (5, Funny)

ghettoboy22 (723339) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078789)

SCO: Do not try and use Linux. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.

IBM: What truth?

SCO: There is no Linux.

IBM: There is no Linux?

SCO: Then you'll see that it is not Linux that you're using, it is only SCO Unix Openserver v. 5. And that will be $699 per CPU please or else you'll be hearing from our lawyers.

SCO can suck this.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078791)

Atlanta's finest [privatepar...imited.com] escorts

Glad I invested... (1)

Termina (808506) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078793)

Up 0.02 (0.56%)! I'm rich!

Why... (1)

Electric Eye (5518) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078795)

is SCO even allowed to orperate as a business anymore? This drama becomes more absurd each week. We'll see geeks dancing in sthe streets when thee numbnuts go under in the next year or so.

Rooflez (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078798)


IANAL but from I understand SCO

You don't appear to be a writer either.

Re:Rooflez (1)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078869)

Of course he's not a writer--he's a Slashdot editor! The two are mutually exclusive.

-- n

If it doesn't exist then how can they sue? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078802)

Also, it's a trademark, just like any other. I'm sure SCO wishes it didn't exist so they could sell their outclassed and outdated stone age Unix software.

Once again they prove they need to be contraversial and down right laughable to gain as much publicity as possible.

Re:If it doesn't exist then how can they sue? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078881)

SCO has no hope in hell of selling their Unix to anyone who isn't a legacy customer. Aside from point of sale applications no one is installing their crap any more except as part of a bundle with some software owned by a company too stupid to port it to a real operating system. SCO Unix is the last-place contender and it has no chance to survive, hence the new and litigious nature of a company that once brought joy and light to many by providing a relatively inexpensive Unix that ran on extremely inexpensive x86-based hardware. (The fact that they are really a different company now notwithstanding.)

huh? (-1, Redundant)

hundalz (746586) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078803)

These litigious Bastards [sco.com] are back again! Can't they smell that being litigious Bastards [sco.com] is pretty bad. Why don't these litigious Bastards [sco.com] ever just give up and realise that being litigious Bastards [sco.com] is not going to help bring up their litigious Bastards [sco.com] stock prices. Damn litigious Bastards [sco.com]

SCO should hire this guy.... (4, Funny)

Svet-Am (413146) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078804)

Hell, he did wonderful things for saddam ;-)

Iraqi Information Minister [welovethei...nister.com]

This is brilliant (5, Interesting)

thewalled (626165) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078809)

Starts to talk nonsense..
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.

Accelerates..
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.

Goes into overdrive..
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."

and ofcourse finally..
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"

I wish more people like this existed to make my day.

Re:This is brilliant (5, Funny)

tomoose (449824) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078926)

quote: "...almost an enterprise-class operating system."

Almost? In the same way that I'm "almost" alive? It's surely more 'almost' than some of the stuff being produced by the merchents more usually known as Microsoft.

Wow, this is almost a post.

GNU (3, Insightful)

WoodenRobot (726910) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078815)

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Linux based on GNU? And isn't Gnu Not Unix?

Also, if Linux doesn't exist, will my computer still work when I get home? I've got important stuff on there, and I'd like it to not be a figment of my imagination, as I haven't backed it up lately.

Re:GNU (1)

MC Negro (780194) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078882)


and I'd like it to not be a figment of my imagination, as I haven't backed it up lately
Take solace in the fact that it's all a figment of my imagination. YOU'RE ALL PAWNS IN MY LITTLE ACID TRIP OF A GAME!!!

What a title (1)

floydman (179924) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078816)

'Linux Doesn't Exist'
Cause from the first glimpse, i wonder "then what the hell are over 1000 servers doing back work if Linux doest exist...i must be dreaming the past few years"

SCO is insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078817)

I have seen proof that SCO (Utah) is insane. But the insanity is spreading to other SCO outfits! Is the head nut so convincing? I don't get it.

linux doesn't exist? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078823)

Is that why my computer wouldn't boot this morning?

Wow ... (3, Funny)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078832)

That O'Shaughnessy bloke sure is one heck of a solipsist [wikipedia.org] .

IBM's response (3, Insightful)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078833)

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"


Well, to put this in context, since Kieren O'Shaughnessy says Linux doesn't exist, IBM lawyers should respond to all the lawsuits as 'What Linux?'

Re:IBM's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078959)

Nice pyramid scheme you're pointing to in your .sig, there. :P

Re:IBM's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078962)

Ummm, this isn't Insightful. It's either Funny or just stupid, depending on the author's intention.

Re:IBM's response (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078970)

Well, to put this in context, since Kieren O'Shaughnessy says Linux doesn't exist, IBM lawyers should respond to all the lawsuits as 'What Linux?'

Amusing post, but you missed the entire point. SCO's response to that would be:

SCO: "Your honor, since IBM has now admitted that Linux does not exist, and thus have now admitted that only SCO's Unix exists, we request an immediate judgment in our favor."

Judge (looking at IBM's lawyers like they're idiots): "So ordered."

Re:IBM's response (3, Funny)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 10 years ago | (#10079013)

He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

This guy spent thirty seconds writing "What chair?" ?

Soviet Computer Orginization? (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078837)

It sounds like they're engagaing in tactics that the late Soviet Union was accused of. I mean, in their world it may make sense, but out here in reality Linux does exist; they can't claim it's an "Unlicensed" version because they haven't proven anything in this massive Pump and Dump scheme.

More to the story (5, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078838)

After saying that Linux doesn't exist, O'Shaughnessy then ran around the room with his fingers in his ears, yelling "lalalalalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!"

Afterwards, he went on to discuss SCO's legal strategy of, "I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me sticks to you".

There's a lot more on groklaw (5, Informative)

twfry (266215) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078840)

Seriously, go to groklaw [groklaw.net] and read the latest 4-5 files from IBM. Yes they are each ~100 pages but very interesting. Basically IBM has nailed SCO in a box that they can't get out of. In fact IBM is so confident that the language in their filings has gotten beyond the normal angry lawyer comments as they point out how insane SCO's arguements are.

Like a Child (4, Insightful)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078841)

A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.

When I was a little boy I came home from school and asked my mom if we could skip Thursday. She was puzzled and said "no". She later found out that I had gotten in trouble at school, and the teacher had scheduled a disciplinary meeting on Thursday afternoon.

Thursday doesn't exist.

Linux doesn't exist (2, Funny)

f0rtytw0 (446153) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078843)

Well the real surprise will hit SCO when they find out australia doesn't exist.

Poor SCO (1)

farquharsoncraig (711336) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078850)

Their legal evidence evaporating the only thing they know how to do is manufacture FUD, the bigger, uglier, and more ridiculous now they're in the corner.

What the.... (0, Redundant)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078851)

From the article:

SCO, he said, doesn't just expect financial compensation but removal of the stolen code.

"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix," he added.

How can you remove stolen code from something that doesnt exsist...
More so if Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix and they own Unix isnt all the code stolen...

if it doesn't exist... (1)

bryanthompson (627923) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078853)

Then How am i posting this message with this browser that doesn't exist? Wait, where am I? Who ARE you people!

SCO is like a turd that just won't flush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078854)

Reminds me of rambus.

If Linux doesn't exist... (4, Funny)

Max von H. (19283) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078862)

If Linux doesn't exist, then Darl shouldn't object to the shoving of the aforementioned inexistent printed source code up his ass, right?

Huh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078864)

How can something that does not exist infringe on SCO's properties?

Beckett (Samuel) would be enlighted ! (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078865)

Quote: "Absurdism is a theory that was carried over into the dramatic art form as "Theatre of the Absurd." In the Theatre of the Absurd, there was an attempt to convey the concept of the absurd through deliberate distortions and violations of conventional forms, to undermine the ordinary expectations of continuity and rationality. This avant-garde dramatic convention emphasized the illogical and purposeless nature of existence. It was often violent, grotesque and outrageously funny, conveying meaning through masks, ritual, sounds, gestures, costumes or stylized actions."

loc. cit. [belenjesuit.org]

CC.

Dupe!! (0, Troll)

thewalled (626165) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078868)

It's a dupe!!
It's a dupe!!
This is the same thing we've being hearing for more than a year

And he's right (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078877)

There is no Linux!

It's GNU/Liunx!!!!!!!

When will you people learn?

Regards,
RS

Lines of code... (2, Insightful)

powerlinekid (442532) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078889)

So it was said to be in the hundreds of thousands...
Then it was in the thousands... then the hundreds, then the dozens...

Now all of a sudden its the whole damn thing? I would love to hear SCO explain how someone could have the complete code to an unlicensed version of Unix and have gotten away with it until now.

Crack must be real cheap in Utah these days...

THE Internet meltdown? (2, Funny)

duslow (648755) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078891)

Is this the forecasted meltdown of the Internet. Tell all the world that Linux doesn't exist, and whamo, no more Internet?

*Waves hand* (2, Funny)

twifosp (532320) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078892)

This is not the software you are looking for.

We can go about our business.

Move along.

There you have it. Linux doesn't exist. No need for a law suit then, right?

A new mouthpiece? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078893)

Now that Darl has kinda been bitch slapped and doesn't really give us much juicy stuff in the press anymore, it appears that this dude is the new mouse that roars.

What happens to SCO Australia after SCO USA is pulverized? Do they and the rest of the SCO's go away too? Anybody know?

Credibility (5, Insightful)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078897)

I know SCO doesn't have much (if any!) credibility with geeks on Slashdot, but when you want to win a court case you have to maintain credibility in your claims.

Using terms like "hit list" is not a good way of gaining credibility with investors and with judges. Claiming that something doesn't exist and then trying to sue people for using it doesn't help your credibility with anyone.

The legal system isn't deaf or blind to the media; SCO's ridiculous actions will affect the outcome of subsequent court cases. As we've seen with IBM's increasing success in court, SCO just hasn't learned these lessons.

Not that I mind at all.

Contemplating Existence (5, Funny)

Gallenod (84385) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078901)

I think, therefore I am.

Linux computes, therefore it is.

But if SCO falls in a forest of futile legal filings, did it really make a sound or was that just wind breaking?

Also overheard... (3, Funny)

wramsdel (463149) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078904)

SCO (to everyone): "La La La La...I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"

Linux (to SCO): "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"

SCO (to AT&T): "Mom, Linux is poking me! Make him stop! Make him stop!"

Does this remind anyone (2, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078912)

of that one Scooby Doo where the bad guy, freshly unmasked, exclaims, "But these are Confederate stock certificates! They're worth nothing!", and then is taken to jail?

They certainly would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids [ibm.com]

Me neither.

SCO is going down, but is that enough? (1)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078914)

I think it is increasingly clear that SCO is going to lose this fight, but that won't compensate anyone for the uncertainly they have created around the reputation of Linux in their shameless effort to inflate their stock price.

I really hope the individuals behind this disgraceful farce get blacklisted by every tech company on the planet, they deserve nothing less.

Forgive me D.A. (4, Funny)

fizban (58094) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078924)

Can... not... resist... Must... corrupt... HHGTTG quote...

"I refuse that Linux exists," says SCO, "for Linux denies Copyrights, and without Copyrights I am nothing."

"But," says Torvalds, "Open Source copyrights are a dead giveaway, aren't they? They could not have evolved by chance. In Linux they exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says SCO, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Torvalds, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

Most leading software developers claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for SCO.'

This adds a new dimension to... (1)

dominiv (741746) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078927)

... ceci n'est pas une pipe

Moderation Results (2, Funny)

ZeroConcept (196261) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078931)

Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix

-1 Troll

Delisting SCOX (2, Interesting)

greenmars (685118) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078932)

At some point, when a company's stock price drops low enough for long enough, it gets delisted, right?

So SCOX is now down to 3.64, the last time I checked:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&quicken=2 [yahoo.com]

Does anyone know at what point they will be delisted?

Fade to background noise (1)

nonmaskable (452595) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078942)

Thankfully, the whole SCO mess had kind of faded away into a bland hum of claims, counterclaims, and posturing by SCO. It's still annoying, but you know in the end they'll be ground into dust.

On the other hand, these guys are such clowns it's no surprise IBM is wiping the floor with them. We'll have something to worry about when a well-funded, smart foe springs a well-conceived trap (.net/mono, Sun/Java, ...) on us.

Not quite right... (5, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078951)

'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'.

Small correction: It's GNU/Linux. And GNU's Not Unix.

Third Eye (2, Funny)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078966)

Today SCO on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as Linux, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather

In other news... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078969)

SCO concluded by saying the "moon doesn't even exist", "everybody knows it is just an unlicenced copy of the Earth" which SCO claim was stolen when a large Mars sized body crashed into Earth some years ago.

152nd Rule of Acquisition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10078975)

"A lie is a way to tell the truth to someone who doesn't know."

SCO doesn't care about this (5, Insightful)

GreenCrackBaby (203293) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078990)

We knew this would eventually happen. Hell, SCO knew they would end up in this type of hot water. The whole problem with this mess is that they don't care if they lose.

The connection between themselves and Microsoft is firmly established now. I guess it is still open to debate if Microsoft was the company that came up with the idea of using SCO as a massive FUD machine against Linux, or if they simply started backing SCO once they realised what potential that would have. My personal guess would be that you could probably trace the very idea back to Redmond, but that's really irrelvant here.

For all the time this has been going on, there has been a blanket of FUD over Linux. Most people here saw through it, but even on Slashdot you could find posts along the lines of "...but what if SCO is actually right and their IP is in Linux..." The business world, getting their news from sources like Forbes, had a far different perception. To them, Linux suddenly became a poison pill that no IT manager would touch. You may believe Linux's reputation will eventually recover, but SCO was able to plant seeds of doubt in so many minds in the mean time.

The real trajedy here is that this type of tactic has made SCO management and board members rich, SCO employees unemployed, Linux tarnished in the eyes of the businessman, and most likely nothing will ever be done to punish those responsible for the lies.

What a scam... (2, Insightful)

nologin (256407) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078993)

If you thought that paying $699 per CPU license for a GPL'ed operating system was a rip off, they pull a bigger scam on us by saying we should pay the same amount for something that doesn't exist.

Hmm, the stink of fraud is certainly filling up the room now...

SCOX (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#10078998)

Man I love this graph! [yahoo.com]

SCO is officially well under the $4 mark on their one-artificially-healthy stock.

Ah.... this reminds me of a good quote. (1)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 10 years ago | (#10079003)

My friend Jay and I were hanging out one day, and he started saying all sorts of nutty things. So I looked him square in the eye and said, "You're crazy."
He looked back at me with eyes so horribly deep and said, "I'm not crazy. You're crazy. I'm not even here!"

Just seemed kind of relevant.

zen (1)

Thinman (59679) | more than 10 years ago | (#10079004)

No they are attacking Linux with zen [wikipedia.org] . "What is the sound of one hand?" "What is the sound of Linux Running on my server?" LOL

The Green Mile for SCO (2, Interesting)

div_2n (525075) | more than 10 years ago | (#10079016)

This all started as a gamble for SCO. They thought for sure IBM would have just bought them to make them shut up.

That didn't happen then SCO thought maybe they could extort lots of money from Linux users.

That didn't happen so then they thought they could sue other companies to scare people into buying.

That didn't happen and now they are walking the Mile. Expect lots of sound and fury but in the end it will signify nothing.

OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10079020)

OH....

MY.....

GOD......

So what you are saying, in reality, is that Computers do not exist? We ARE in the Matrix! Nooooooooo!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?