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 Vs. IBM Leaks Exposed

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-see-what-yer-packin dept.

Caldera 89

Xenographic writes "Remember all the fuss about SCO subpoenaing PJ of Groklaw, where they allege that she's funded by IBM because she once got a publicly available document from a volunteer at the courthouse a little before it hit the Court's website? That's nothing. Groklaw has evidence that other materials have been leaked in this case — but they weren't leaked to Groklaw, and they weren't leaked by IBM. Information about the sealed materials in question made its way to Maureen O'Gara, who wrote a story based on inside information, displaying a positively uncanny insight into what SCO was planning, including far more than just the sealed document a SCO lawyer read out loud in open court. Interestingly, several witnesses report that Maureen O'Gara did not even attend that hearing, leaving us to speculate about her source."

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

Intel Core 2 Duo accelerates your internet experie (-1, Troll)

(TK)Dessimat0r (668222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654659)

Firefox uses one CPU, Thunderbird uses the other amirite

Re:Intel Core 2 Duo accelerates your internet expe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18654731)

U R RITE

IBM supports SCO (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18654703)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704072 21422994 [groklaw.net]

OK not really but you can make a case that SCO relies on ibiblio servers donated by IBM. Therefore SCO is supported by IBM just as much as Groklaw is. LOL

Retarded Moderation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18654893)

How is this a troll? Do moderators have no shame or sensibility?

Re:Retarded Moderation (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655351)

How is this a troll? Do moderators have no shame or sensibility?
You must be new here.


warning: The above content tests positive for sarcasm and/or is a failed attempt at humor and should be taken with a pound of alt.

Re:Retarded Moderation (4, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655363)

Do moderators have no shame or sensibility?

No, pretty much not. The problem with the moderation on slashdot is that it depends on the same fucking morons who read and post to do the moderation. They don't bother thinking about/reading the articles before commenting, why bother with either when judging comments?

Re:Retarded Moderation (3, Funny)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656643)

I enjoyed how you, in a nice way, suggested that most moderators are morons -- and then had your comment moderated up as informative.

Re:Retarded Moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18658383)

And that should have been moderated up to +5 funny. Sigh.

Re:Retarded Moderation (0, Offtopic)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656891)

Easy to fix.
Require potential moderators to take a pop quiz on TFA before they are allowed to moderate on it.
The quiz would determine if they had really read TFA or not. Fail the quiz, no moderation powers, pass the quiz and you can moderate. Sure would cut down on a lot of stupid shit.

Re:Retarded Moderation (4, Insightful)

Captain Nitpick (16515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657289)

Easy to fix.
Require potential moderators to take a pop quiz on TFA before they are allowed to moderate on it.

That would require the "editors" to read TFA so they can write the quiz. That'll never happen.

DiDio! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654751)

Anybody knows what [Laura] position is on this SCO vs IBM issue? I know she had strong views at the beginning.

Re:DiDio! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655157)

Re: Didio - you left off the "t" at the end.

Re:DiDio! (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655449)

DiDio is highly pro-SCO, or was last I bothered to check. So unless someone can point me to where she's done a complete 180...

Re:DiDio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18656095)

Believe it or not I think she has in fact done a complete 180 like you said.

I also think that she realizes how deep the case is in trouble, as well as all the other publications out there (notably Forbes) stopped drinking the SCO Kool-Aid years ago now.

--R

Re:DiDio! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656597)

She tend sot go for the highest bidder or at least it looks that way.

As for her 180, there have been campaigns in the past to not buy any rags with her stories in it. Also there has been pushes to inform the management of the rags your dislike of her. I'm not sure if any 180 would because she woke up and smelled the coffee or because she was pushed that way. However sincere, I doubt anyone could/would trust the words coming from her if they knew about her past.

Didiot's position? I bet it's "bent over". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655541)

As if anyone is ever going to take her as a serious journalist ever again.

Great move, Didiot. You trashed your credibility completely, just to whore for Darl McBride. But he bent you over and fucked you up the ass with an old telephone pole with lots of splinters from lineman's spikes.

Re:Didiot's position? I bet it's "bent over". (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656077)

You drastically overestimate the number of people who care

Not really (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656951)

She has been in league with MS for a number of years. No doubt that she will continue to get inside scoops from them for years to come because she did this for them. Keep in mind, that it is VERY doubtful that any of the pro-SCO journalists believe what they are writing. It is just that they are making LOADS of money by doing so, AND earning MS's gratitude.

Re:Not really (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657971)

Keep in mind, that it is VERY doubtful that any of the pro-SCO journalists believe what they are writing.


I'm not so sure. Granted - some particular writers are very skewed. That would imply some sort of hidden motivation (favors / payment or maybe an axe to grind). But I'm inclined to think Didio was simply duped.

Didio's articles didn't have the wild leaps of logic and vitriol you see in, say, Lyons' or O'Garra's work. Most of Didio's claims seem to be the usual rehashed press releases. The most "damaging" article was her claim to have reviewed some examples of source code and agreed they were examples of blatant copyright infringement by someone in the Linux camp. The sadly amusing thing to this claim is that Didio hasn't shown any expertise in either coding or Unix. She seems to be a Microsoft products expert if anything. So exactly why did she make these claims? She was the right person for the job: a reporter with just enough credibility to be listened to, but otherwise easily conned. In short, Didio didn't know enough to know that she didn't know what she was talking about.

Does that mean Didio doesn't deserve the "Didiot" namesake? Not at all. She was played the fool and should be expect to be labled as such. But I'm not convinced the only reason she'd make the claims she did was because she was squarely in someone's pocket. And I'm likewise not convinced she couldn't have believed what she wrote (misguided or not).

Where this comes from (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18654763)

SCO wants to punish PJ because Groklaw has spoiled their FUD. They can't find her because she's very shy. They try to depose her because then they'll be able to get all her details. The problem is that they need some way to actually connect her to the court cases. So they concoct this story that PJ is a schill for IBM, IBM supports her and IBM feeds her information that should be secret.

SCO's action is an obvious attempt to shut up PJ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP [wikipedia.org] It isn't precisely a SLAPP, but it's the same idea. The trouble for SCO is that, as the article shows, they have actually done that which they accuse IBM of doing. Talk about dirty hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands [wikipedia.org]

Re:Where this comes from (4, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654817)

I was thinking "Jesus Christ! You put in a wikpeida link for anything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything [wikipedia.org] and you get modded up." Only after visiting the link on a lark did I realise it was actually law related. Those who might be similarly disposed, take a look at the wikipedia links before judging ;)

Re:Where this comes from (2, Funny)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655507)

It is true that taking the time to format and submit a link tends to garner mods, especially if vaguely relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything [uncyclopedia.org] probably isn't relevant enough to cut it.

It's funny, though.

Re:Where this comes from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18654835)

Can you say something simple and quite self explanatory without refering to wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Where this comes from (2, Insightful)

iapetus (24050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18658417)

No! [wikipedia.org]

MISMOD Re:Where this comes from (1)

nil0lab (94268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666791)

Mod parent down or grandparent up. Parent is nonsensical without context.

Re:Where this comes from (4, Informative)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655025)

It goes much deeper than that. SCO wants PJ's deposition to be taken in the Novell case and be used in the IBM case AFTER the time for depositions in the IBM case has expired. This is another attempt to get claims into the IBM case and waste more time there forcing IBM to answer yet another silly SCO memo. It is an end run around the IBM schedule as well as what you posted.

B.

Re:Where this comes from (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655175)

They try to depose her
1) I thought dispostions were to be filed with the court (in some form) prior to them happening. When did they start to "try to depose her" according to court records?

spoiled their FUD
2) I don't think too much should be made of this, otherwise, the FUD continues by having everyone running around in circles and forgets what is really is at the heart of this case. Diversion, I think the word is.Look! there's Elvis
3) Mr "Chair Throwing" Balmer from M$, is beginning to sound like SCOx's FUD. Who learned from whom?

wb - Happy Easter

Re:Where this comes from (1)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655827)

Part of me thinks that they want to find out who she is so some guy with a middle name of "the" (Mikey the Knife, Jimmy the Nose, etc) can go "depose" her. I wouldn't put it past them... Darl carries a gun!

Well... (4, Informative)

Checkmait (1062974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654777)

Since it was a sealed document that O'Gara spoke of, then it must have been either SCO or IBM which revealed it to her...

But IBM isn't that dumb and has much more to lose than SCO by not following procedure. Oh, and did I mention that SCO was the one which attempted to read a sealed e-mail in open court? So I think SCO, in addition to all their FUD, is now on the breaking-rules path.

Rules are for suckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18656963)

Well, not precisely, but in the majority of courts there is no penalty for breaking the rules so frequently there is one party which takes advantage of this. Happens a lot in divorce cases. Now, in this case, BSF has nailed Kimball spot-on and determined he will *never* sanction an attorney, no matter how eggregious their behavior. So on and on it goes, and I predict it will get even more out-there as BSF and SCOX get even more desperate. It becomes unfair to the other party, but in this case IBM doesn't much care as they are big enough to just take the punches and shrug them off. It is a war of attrition at this point and SCOX doesn't have a chance in hell. And that's before you even consider their non-case of a lawsuit.

Interesting but ... (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654915)

With SCO's reputation being sh*t, pursuing bogus claims about Unix rights it doesn't even have, facing financial ruin, its officers potentially facing civil litigation for pissing away millions upon millions of shareholder's dollars on this crap, and a handful of other problems, I doubt they really care if they are labeled as hypocrites at this point. It's kind of like a murderer worrying about committing perjury - it can't get much worse once it's gone that far.

So? (1)

raidient (751898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654929)

A short lived UK web site had early details of the case back in February 2006. http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/ Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=342492&mid=41 7017&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1 [yahoo.com]
It made no difference to the case. GL and all the debate around it is just that, debate.
Still it whiles away a Sunday.

supoena O'Gara (4, Interesting)

janneH (720747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18654933)

Maybe IBM should depose Maureen O'Gara? Find out where all that information came from...

Re:supoena O'Gara (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655105)

O'Garish [answers.com] seems to fit the whole of SCO's activities since this started and not just O'Gara's reporting, which seems to exemplify it. If you like this new adjective variation of the public domain adjective "garish", feel free to use it as widely as you please.

Re:supoena O'Gara (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655193)

I'd pay to see the MoGroll [slashdot.org] having to answer that in court ... but I don't think MogTrolls are capable of testifying, since history shows they can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

Add Daniel "Lying" Lyons, Bob Pretenderlie, Darl McBride and Gregory Blepp with his suitcase and the millions of lines of code ... and I can see the judge starting to hand out death penalties to witnesses.

Re:supoena O'Gara (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18657027)

No, for the same reason that a subpoena for PJ's testamony would be quashed. Her testamony is not relivant to the case.

If information under seal has been leaked illegally, it is the judges responsibility to deal with the transgression (and he has the horsepower to deal with it), not IBM or some third party.

Leaked information is not IBM's direct concern, if IBM does not like it then they complain to the court and the court deals with it.

Tom

PJ's response (-1, Troll)

Red Pointy Tail (127601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655047)

This is not going to be a popular viewpoint - but SCO posted a very valid suspicion, something I share as well as I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause (not that I am on SCO's side). It will definitely answer things if PJ stand up to the allegations, but unfortunately or conveniently, she is 'shy'.

And pointing at them and saying 'nyeh-nyeh you do it too' does nothing to address the original suspicion.

Re:PJ's response (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655117)

t will definitely answer things if PJ stand up to the allegations


She has. She has repeatedly, and now recently, denied any connection to IBM. She recently explained (again) how she could get court material in the way she did. She has answered the allegations. What more did you want her to do other than completely respond?

Re:PJ's response (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655477)

What more did you want her to do other than completely respond?

Probably have her show up in person, so that McBribe et al. could hire a gang of thugs to make a drive-by on her house when she's back from the court. Remember that she caused them to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars that were rightfully theirs. At least in their eyes. :)

There's a problem with what you say (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655119)

To depose PJ, SCO has to show that her evidence will have some effect on the outcome of the case. The best they can do is allege unclean hands on the part of IBM. Like the rest of SCO's case, this is very very shaky. The best they can show is one case where PJ 'might' (but probably not) have improperly received a document. On the other hand, SCO's actions were blatant. It's like a murderer accusing the cop that arrested him of jaywalking.

There's NO impropriety or unclean hands there... (3, Informative)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656437)

SCO is accusing PJ of receiving legal docs filed in the case from IBM. Weeeell, aside from the serious doubtfulness that this actually happened (GrokLaw has several volunteers who visit the courthouse and pick up hardcopies, which sometimes can even lack the usual court-clerk stamp - clerks being fallible humans too) the documents SCO mentions are not sealed, hence are PUBLIC RECORDS. Thus, there's no misconduct whatever involved in a party to the case giving non-sealed filings to a journalist, blogger, or passerby on the street. (Incidentally, journalists DO try to get early copies of such filings from the parties so they can be the first to report the news; this is completely legitimate for nonpriveleged material, as it becomes public record anyway.)

Now, when it comes to a party (SCO) allegedly giving SEALED material to a nonparty (Maureen O'Gara), that's another, entirely smellier, kettle of fish. That WOULD be improper.

Re:There's a problem with what you say (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18658643)

also to depose PJ they would have had to
1 file soupena papers with the court (to get those funny blue?? documents that are the official service media)
2 email PJ to get her actual address
3 have an actual person go to said location to say the Lines " Pamela Jones , this is a notice to appear please sign here"

1 2 and 3 have not happened so whatever reality TSCOG is in it ain't this one

Re:There's a problem with what you say (1)

mstone (8523) | more than 7 years ago | (#18659299)

Actually, the theory I've heard is that SCO wants to get its hands on the private (protected) documents belonging to IBM's lawyers.

Normally, communication between a lawyer and their client is privileged. The other side can't see it and can't subpoena it, no matter how much they want to or how much it might help their case. You can admit being guilty as sin to your lawyer, and that admission will never be allowed to enter a court of law.

Thing is, the privilege only exists if that information stays strictly between you and your lawyer. If anyone else gets their hands on information that was supposed to be protected by client-attorney privilege, the court will assume that you've waived the privilege and are willing to have the information appear in court.

If SCO could show that IBM or its lawyers passed privileged information to Groklaw, SCO could ask the court for permission to see all of IBM's privileged documents.

That would essentially take the case back to day zero. There would be a whole new round of motions to define the scope of privileged documents SCO was allowed to see, more discovery, more depositions, another chance for SCO to redefine its claims against IBM, and possibly (a very remote chance) give SCO some evidence that IBM actually did do something arguably illegal somewhere along the way.

At minimum, it would mean tons more delay. And SCO would also get an excuse to unleash all manner of punitive crap on PJ for investing the time, effort, and skill necessary to blow their media-driven FUD campaign out of the water.

It's important to remember that SCO's FUD was working until Groklaw came along. Journalists were still writing "there's lots of smoke, so there must be some kind of fire," articles even a couple of years after Groklaw got started. It was only when PJ piled up a big enough heap of documents, cross-referenced the claims, and then started collecting evidence to show that SCO might not be telling the whole truth, that the media machine stopped dancing to SCO's tune. It wasn't until journalists started actually looking at the evidence and drawing their own conclusions, instead of just parroting SCO's latest set of talking points or paraphrasing whatever article SCO had astroturfed out through its shills, that SCO really started to lose its case in the court of public opinion.

Re:PJ's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655141)

How about both PJ and O'Gara are both journalists and can't under normal circumstances be forced to reveal their sources?

In addition to Groklaw PJ is published in at least 1 Linux Magazine which would make her a journalist even if Groklaw didn't qualify her (as it should).

O'Gara may be a paid hack but she still qualifies as a (hack) journalist.

Re:PJ's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655145)

Which part of 'Publically', 'Available' don't you understand?

Re:PJ's response (3, Informative)

tribecom (1005035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655153)

It's no mystery why pj has the time for this.....shes writing a book about this entire debacle. It's her job.

Re:PJ's response (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655159)

I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause

Much the same way that Ken Brown of AdTI had problems believing that Linux wasn't based on the Minix codebase. In fact he had so much trouble that he went ahead and published even after Andrew Tannenbaum (no great friend on Linus' in the past) uncategorically told him that this was not the case [cs.vu.nl] .

The thing is though, if you accept the notion of computer programmers (Linus, rms, and all the rest of them) devoting all their spare time to creating a Free Software operating system, who do you find it so strange that someone whose expertise lies in the legal sphere should devote her time to defending the same?

There are people who can't program but who write documentation to support their favourite free software projects. Must we assume they too are secretly funded by IBM?

Re:PJ's response (3, Informative)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655309)

Don't forget that after an analysis by a professional that Ken Brown hired told him there was ZERO evidence to support his claim that Linus stole code from Minix that he refused to believe her ( http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/codecomparison/ [cs.vu.nl] ).

Corporate death penalty for SCOX (1)

the saltydog (450856) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655709)

First, thank you for your well thought out reply. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would like to add that I wish that IBM would somehow subpoena the IPs and records from the SCOX Yahoo board, to expose the SCO Group corporate executives that were caught red-handed posting on their own company message board, pumping their own stock, and, in several cases, bragging about their "1300% return" on their initial investment. When quizzed about it by SLC Tribune writer Bob Mims, they flatly denied it, but further research proved that at least 3 Yahoo nyms that conversed to each other, were all created out of the same parent account - anmcbride; Darl's wife is Andrea McBride. This alone means nothing, until you find that a Google search of the nym with a Yahoo.com address showed the same address used as the primary contact for Darl and Andrea, for Darl's son on a local youth baseball team. (The page, and subsequent Google cache have been removed, but many copies were made at the time of the discovery.)

Furthermore, one of the lawyers that was said to have assisted with a mock trial at the initial stages of this stock scam, was also furiously pumping this stock on the Yahoo board - his nym was ledite, which is Italian for "injured party"; he, or someone who works for/with him, is quoted quite often in early SCO Group news items, as a primary partner in a well-known Silicon Valley IP law firm. If the SEC found out who HE was, there would be hell to pay, and his firm would be disbarred.
I would bet they wouldn't want that to happen.

experts and information (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655735)

if you accept the notion of computer programmers (Linus, rms, and all the rest of them) devoting all their spare time to creating a Free Software operating system, who do you find it so strange that someone whose expertise lies in the legal sphere should devote her time to defending the same?


Also, one should never forget that people who are experts in a field have their own resources. I don't know about legal issues (IANAL, etc), but have taken a look at Ken Brown's diatribes and he seems to know nothing at all about operating systems.


Everything that Linus would have needed to create Linux from scratch is contained in a 150 pages book, "Fundamentals of Operating Systems", by A.M.Lister. I wrote a "toy" kernel myself in Basic for a simulated virtual machine, in the early 1980s, when I read that book. Unfortunately, the Tandy CoCo that I had at the time was too limited to run a real OS, although there were people running OS/9 on it.


All this is to say that I find Ken Brown's incredulity much more surprising than the fact that Linus wrote his kernel in spare time. Writing 10000 lines in a year? Heck, I once wrote 2000 lines in a week, tested, debugged and documented. Any programmer knows that for every "algorithm" line that you must ponder and twist and turn this and that way to make it work there are a hundred lines of "boiler plate" that you type automatically after a few years experience.


Therefore, I find it quite natural that someone who is as much interested in legal matters as I am interested in computers would be able to produce an amount of work in that field that would amaze me. Perhaps reading and analyzing a ten thousand pages legal brief would be as easy as writing a ten thousand lines program is for me, if I had the necessary interest, talent, and experience.

Re:experts and information (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656911)

Unfortunately, the Tandy CoCo that I had at the time was too limited to run a real OS, although there were people running OS/9 on it.

I used OS/9 on the CoCo when I was developing games, it had some advantages over the standard environment. It's been a long time since I've heard it mentioned.

Re:experts and information (1)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18658673)

We're getting off topic here, but I couldn't resist a Google search for OS 9. It turns out that the old CoCos are still out there kicking:

http://www.coco3.com/ [coco3.com]

There's even a company still making a living off of OS9:

http://www.microware.com/ [microware.com]

And a wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-9 [wikipedia.org]

(Yeah, I know I should've made working links. I'm feeling lazy today. :) )

Re:experts and information (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657295)

> Any programmer knows that for every "algorithm" line that you must ponder and twist and turn this and that
> way to make it work there are a hundred lines of "boiler plate" that you type automatically after a few
> years experience.

Actually, in the Perl community, we call this "re-inventing the wheel" and encourage fledgeling programmers to stop doing it. Linux is written in C, of course, so your point is valid in the instance you were talking about. I merely wanted to point out that not *all* programming is necessarily that way. The code that reads a config file does not *have* to be dozens of lines long, for instance. Half a dozen lines of nice clear legible Perl will do the job, or, if you want to play golf, twenty or thirty characters of not-so-legible Perl.

Re:experts and information (1)

unity (1740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657517)

It's almost as if you intentionally misunderstood the parent to get you language-choice statement posted.
Are you saying that in Perl you never type "boiler" plate code? Isn't defining a new function or variable almost identical? ie: boilerplate?

My understanding of the parent was that for most code, it doesn't really take much thought to type out the definitions or syntax. That becomes "automatic". Whereas the actual logic and design concepts take the majority of time.

Perl 4 was the first language I ever learned. I haven't used it in a few years; but the parent's point is true IMNSHO perl or c or whatever.

Re:experts and information (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673371)

> Are you saying that in Perl you never type "boiler" plate code?

Not in anything like the hundred-lines-at-a-time quantities the other poster was talking about.
The closest I've ever come to doing that in Perl is writing the POD for a module, and that's documentation.

> Isn't defining a new function or variable almost identical?

Defining a new function is mostly about what the function does, so, no.

Defining lexical variables is pretty much the same every time, but we're talking here about *one* line.

There are, of course, idioms in Perl, things an experienced programmer types automatically, but they're *short*, usually on the order of one line, two counting the use statement if the function you need isn't in core. The lengthiest Perl idiom I can think of off the top of my head is the Schwartzian Transform, and Perl6 is introducing a method for that.

Re:experts and information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18657531)

Half a dozen lines of nice clear legible Perl will do the job


Yeah, I know that feeling, it goes like

foreach $name (<../orbref1/*.{c,h}>) {
    open IN, "< $name" or die "can't open $name: $!";
    @txt = <IN>;
    close IN; ...
}
etcetera...
Fortunately, I've learned to control that feeling after I learned Python...

Re:experts and information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18659009)

Yeah,
Just like I can tach you to become a painter in 5 seconds:
  get a brush;
  get paint;
  get canvas;
  put paint on brush;
  apply paint-smudged-brush to canvas.

easy enough, ain't it?

but becoming a michaelangelo could take liftime
or you may even never get it at all.

Re:experts and information (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673405)

I tried to learn Python, but after a while I discovered that I didn't always want to do things Guido's Way, so I picked up a copy of Effective Perl Programming and have never looked back.

Re:PJ's response (2, Informative)

neongenesis (549334) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655165)

Ok, I share your worry that it is difficult to bring up troubling questions without being labeled a Troll. I value discussion of all points of view.

However, PJ DID address the original suspicion in her first response.

She first stated simply and clearly "NO" "Wrong" "I Didn't"

Then she went into a lot of detail justifying the simple direct "addressing of the original suspicion" with what seems a very complete discussion of all the allegations. Such as IBM funding because of donating to Ibiblio and how a document might get to her hands before the official court website and so on.

So I think that the original suspicions have been very well addressed in a quick and complete way.

And then she did say "Nyeh-Nyeh". It is a little childish, but I wold probably say the same thing given the circumstances.

Re:PJ's response (4, Informative)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655181)

Dear god, please, please stop using the word "incredulous" as though it were a synonym to "incredible." A person who has a hard time believing something is "incredulous"; the thing they have a hard time believing is "incredible."

Re:PJ's response (4, Interesting)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655185)

The 'shy' bit, in my opinion, covers a multitude of feelings regarding having your online identity too-precisely connected to your meatspace identity. PJ doesn't have to be socially reluctant in order to not want everyone reading her web site to know real-life details about her, but if she is shy then that just makes these feelings more acute. For example, I am not shy, but I did once have a web site that became very popular for a time. It didn't feature a message board, per se, but I received massive amounts of email from readers, some of which I posted back to the site, etc. So there was a pretty large 'community,' and a certain fraction of that community wanted to know personal details about me. I always deflected these requests. As far as I am aware, none of the several hundred people trying to figure out who I was or what I was like in real life were successful.

Did I have a reason for keeping things 'secret' like that? Maybe not, but there is something unsettling about that kind of scrutiny, something you feel like you want to avoid. I don't blame PJ at all for keeping her real-life details mysterious. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:PJ's response (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656821)

The issue of shy could easily be addressed by legal council.

Of course then there is a cost factor and all but PJ could effectively put all this to rest buy a competent legal council. First any and all question could be limited to the case they have made in courts to exclude any fishing expeditions. Second, any steps could be made to exclude anything that would identify her outside her on line life. Third, the judge could limit the submission of anything not already on record.

I was called in a wrongful death suit once were I had done somethings that were technically illegal but weren't a direct cause or connected to the death in any ways. I had the very same that I suggested done for me and I was confident that I was protected. And BTW, I didn't know that I was "technically" breaking the law until after this happened. It was only after it was suggested that I was, i got scared and received legal council who took relatively good care of my imposition. And my actions were limited to viewing records I shouldn't have been so I was removed completely from any aspect or responsibility of the death entirely.

I imagine the rules change from state to state so maybe we should start a legal fund to help PJ through this.

Re:PJ's response (1)

mr.mighty (162506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18659049)

I believe she's also mentioned her shyness in posts about attending conferences, etc.. It may be that this simply stems from not wanting to be identified as PJ, but does sound like she really is shy.

Re:PJ's response (1, Offtopic)

niiler (716140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655211)

Look at sourceforge.net's 140,000 plus projects, all of which are maintained under some sort of open source license. Very few of them get funding of any sort to exist. Clearly there are lots of people out there who *do* spend much of their free time voluntarily putting stuff out into the community. Some do it to scratch an itch and others for fun. But just because *you* wouldn't be able to find the time to do this as a volunteer doesn't mean that it's impossible for others to do so.

Re:PJ's response (3, Insightful)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655241)

The whole unclean hands bit actually holds up in court. If you had RTFA you'd see the rebuttal is that PJ has not reported on sealed documents or closed transcript hearings. Obvious SCO shills have.

It's hard to claim that the documents that are given out by IBM PR and the court (with court stamps, and volunteer's picking the crap up) is privileged. If you actually read Groklaw, that's nearly all that's reported (albeit, with a heavy dose of op-ed.)

Re:PJ's response (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18655245)

And pointing at them and saying 'nyeh-nyeh you do it too' does nothing to address the original suspicion.

PJ didn't admit to doing any such thing from what I read, it was more like "nyeh-nyeh you are doing what you wrongly accused me of doing".

I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause (not that I am on SCO's side). It will definitely answer things if PJ stand up to the allegations, but unfortunately or conveniently, she is 'shy'.

If you take a good look around the Free and OSS world you will find numerous people devoting extreme amounts of time to things in it they care a lot about. Take Linus, RSS and Bruce Perens for example, heck for all we know PJ could be one of them in drag and drop, which definately would explain the "shy" factor, even though no one would think of any of them as being shy, not normally at least. Most likely though PJ is just what she says she is, a trained paralegal who likes and respects GNU/Linux and in this case found a way they could contribute back to the community and doesn't seek any fame from it and wishes no problems for herself or her family.

Re:PJ's response (2, Insightful)

Socguy (933973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655289)

PJ has ruffled lots of feathers.

Firstly, she's not a lawyer but a paralegal and this offends some people who seem to believe that only those who've passed the bar have the necessary mental acuity required to effectively navigate the morass of legalese found in the courtroom.

Secondly, lot's of people don't believe that PJ would devote so much time to supposed 'hobby' unless she is getting some kind of compensation. Well, I believe it. If someone is enjoying whatever they do, then that is often the reward in itself. How many hours do people spend on their cars, or building model ships-in-a-bottle? Why is it so hard to believe that someone may spend a couple hours a day on a subject they obviously enjoy?

Re:PJ's response (2, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655421)

And TSG has alleged that nobody can write an OS kernel by his lonesome. TSG has alleged many, MANY things. They have even alleged that I, BMO, personally owe them $699 per CPU to run Linux. To date, none of their allegations were shown to have any weight. None, zero, nada, nil.

PJ didn't need to fake an illness to duck a subpoena. This is the internet, isn't it?. She could be anywhere in the world and still run Groklaw. She could be sitting right next to me.

Nevermind the stories by Lyin' Lyons et alia came out saying that PJ was being subpoenaed _after_ PJ said she needed to take a health break.

--
BMO

Re:PJ's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18657123)

She could be sitting right next to me.
Oh Noes! You shouldn't have said that. Now they're going to subpoena you! ;^)

Re:PJ's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18657731)

well, the truth is, she isn't faking anything.

Re:PJ's response (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655817)

I share as well as I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause (not that I am on SCO's side).

Some of us spend all our free time playing WoW. Some of us have other hobbies like playing music, sports (maybe not on /. but generally :P), etc. Groklaw is PJ's hobby. Why is that so hard to believe?

What kind of a court is that? (1)

dusanv (256645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655913)

How long has this been going on? How many times has SCO amended or changed their claims completely? Even the judge commented at one point that they don't have any proof. And yet this continues. Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?

Re:What kind of a court is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18656529)

Civil trials can take FOREVER.

Re:What kind of a court is that? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657109)

> Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?

Only if the defense can afford to keep a fleet of lawyers on the case indefinitely, and even then only if they also determine that they'd rather do that than give in and settle. IBM can and has, but this is not universally the case. Some court battles do actually end.

Re:What kind of a court is that? (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657325)

How long has this been going on? How many times has SCO amended or changed their claims completely? Even the judge commented at one point that they don't have any proof. And yet this continues. Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?

Short answer: The court system is always slow, but this case is taking at least twice as long as it normally would, for various reasons that all boil down to SCO not wanting to get to trial.

Long answer: It's not unusual for one of the parties in a court case to try to drag it out, so obviously it's the responsibility of the legal system to make sure that doesn't happen -- too much -- and the system is reasonably good at that. However, it's always the defendant who wants a long, drawn-out trial, in the hopes that by the time the court gets around to ruling the issue will have become moot. So, the legal system is designed to allow the plaintiff to drive the process forward, since the plaintiff is generally interested in getting a judgment ASAP.

In this case, however, it's the plaintiff who has been dragging his heels since the first day, because SCO never really wanted to be in court anyway, because they know they can't win. IBM's ability to drive the case forward is somewhat limited because of their position as the defendant, and anyway they seem more interested in making sure that SCO is crushed into molecule-thin paste than rushing things. The judges appear to have recognized quite some time ago what's going on, and their actions have been mixed. On the one hand, they don't want this thing on their dockets any longer than necessary, so they've been trying to define and follow strict schedules. On the other hand, they definitely don't want this thing coming back to them, and SCO is obviously going to appeal if they lose, so they also have a motivation to take their time and make the case appeal-proof. The best way to do that is to allow SCO lots of latitude, and SCO is quite happy to use every opportunity to slow things down.

Even worse, there are other cases involved here as well, including the Novell v SCO case, which is being heard by the same judges as SCO v IBM. Based on the various scheduling orders and when the judges finally decided to dig in their heels and refuse any more delays, SCO v IBM would be moving fast right now, probably just about ready to go in front of a jury, but the Novell v SCO case was filed last year. Since Novell v SCO will resolve many issues that apply to SCO v IBM, it makes sense to resolve them first. Not only that, but Novell's pushing hard for an early resolution (typical plaintiff behavior) because their claim is that SCO owes them lots of money and the more of it SCO spends fighting IBM, the less will be available to pay Novell. So, Judge Kimball made a decision that Novell v SCO should go first. Very sensible, except that Novell v SCO was just filed last year (or maybe late 2005?) and is still in heavy discovery. The discovery phase will be much shorter than SCO v IBM's was, largely because Novell is driving it hard, but it'll still take a year or so. In the meantime, SCO v IBM just has to wait.

Re:What kind of a court is that? (1)

Quince alPillan (677281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661617)

In other words, the courts and IBM are giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves with and SCO keeps drawing the noose tighter.

Re:What kind of a court is that? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662995)

In other words, the courts and IBM are giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves with and SCO keeps drawing the noose tighter.

Yes, but very, very slowly.

Re:What kind of a court is that? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18659897)

It is perfectly normal for most of the civilized world to regard the US legal system as a cross between a Monty Python sketch and a Loony Tunes cartoon. This isn't, by any means, the longest-running court case. It's not even the longest-running tech court case. (The DR-DOS vs. Microsoft case ran for over a decade and the Microsoft antitrust case in the US was really just an extension of the Windows 95 illegal bundling case.)

Nor is US justice considered particularly competent, by many observers even in the US. There is ample evidence of extreme corruption throughout the system, not particularly helped by the current political scandals affecting the DOJ, nor helped by the scandalous and overtly political appointments of Supreme Court justices.

Even when it is competent, the system is notoriously powerless. The Sioux won in their Supreme Court battle over fifty years ago to reclaim the Black Hills. It's possible you'll live long enough to see the judgement actually carried out, but unless they perfect cryogentics, I wouldn't bet on it.

The justice system is largely ignored, except when it might give someone a slight advantage. I guess that makes it society's answer to COBOL. There will be no winners of this lawsuit, no matter what happens. SCO has openly and blatantly taken the system for a ride and the system has been entirely happy to let it. Nothing will be truly decided (why do you think SCO does so much shapeshifting?), no precedents will be set, no case law produced, no verdicts reached, no penalties exacted. As far as I can tell, this is with a judge who actually knows what they're doing and knows what's happening. The system is so far beyond broken that it is unclear if it is worthy of further consideration.

Interesting article (2, Funny)

coastin (780654) | more than 7 years ago | (#18655997)

Oh SCO, how did you sink soo low....

When I was a child I use to hope the Circus would never end, but now I've grown tired of the clowns!

hideous clowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18656761)

in an IT kind of way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(novel) [wikipedia.org]

"... It appears in many forms, and takes the shape of It's prey's worst fear (e.g., vampire, werewolf, leeches, or mummy, and in one case the creature from the black lagoon), but most often appears as a sadistic, malevolent, balloon-wielding clown by the name of Bob Gray, or Pennywise the Dancing Clown. The children find It's lair and battle It, wounding the monster badly but not killing it. They make a pact to reunite and fight the creature again if it returns..."

Ahem (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18656729)

Grammar time, /. editors!

"Remember all the fuss about SCO subpoenaing PJ of Groklaw, where they allege that she's funded"

Your tense is all off here and that first sentence should have been easier to read, anyways.

SCO? (1)

alvil (1085695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657021)

Who to hell still cares what is going on in this stupid "company"? Who is using their products if they still have any?

Re:SCO? (1)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 7 years ago | (#18659025)

The Advertisement under the article on my copy of this Slashdot page is ironically for SCO Unixware 7 support.

Re:SCO? (1)

alvil (1085695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660763)

Hi Stuart. More ironic is that this is the advertising for their own hostages and they pay for it with their money :)

This is the case that never ends... (1)

FutureDomain (1073116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18657737)

I don't think this case will ever end. Just when things start to move along, SCO comes up with something to stall the progress. I think that the legal action will end when SCO goes bankrupt. Period.

Novell, IBM, or somebody else will buy the UNIX IP rights (if Novell doesn't already have them) from the smoldering mass that was once the SCO Group and it'll be the end of it. If you currently have SCO stock, it'll be best to dump it right now before the impending impact. Unless the investors get smart and fire McBride and most of the top management, the company will go out with a bang.

The only question I have is whether the whole "UNIX code is in the Linux kernel" will even be settled once and for all after the SCO meltdown. My fear is that it won't be settled and Microsoft will continue to use it as FUD. It would also be nice to have the GPL be declared as constitutional, since that issue has come up. Oh well, the only thing to do is to sit back and watch SCO's stock price, assets, and cash dwindle away.

/// FutureDomain

I never understood the anonymity.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660205)

Everything about the SCO trial is fair game: the players, the testimony, the lawyers, the stock, the facts, the words, the data, the information--everything--and yet I never quite understood how PJ could possibly--after all this time--keep up such an unfailing, accurate, and precise commentary going. I mean I know how some people are willing to donate time and effort, but honestly, PJ's donation of time and effort is bordering on the herculean.

Since we have held source funding up to scutiny before, I would be interested to learn whether PJ has had any funding of her own. Donating herculean effort is one thing, but being paid for it is quite another. Her (his?) anonymity has always puzzled me. There doesn't seem to be a true need for anonymity here. What, is someone afraid SCO's going to hunt her down and beat up her dogs?

Re:I never understood the anonymity.. (1)

mattt79 (1005999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666931)

| There doesn't seem to be a true need for anonymity here. What,
| is someone afraid SCO's going to hunt her down and beat up her dogs?

As a matter of fact, quite possibly:

      McBride has stated that he caries a gun.
      At least two people connected with this case have died from suicide.
      There have been several threats against her, interestingly enough from anonymous sources.

Oh why, oh why am I responding to an AC?

Matt

Actually, they allege she's funded by IBM (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661113)

Because OSDL, under an IBM Chairman, gave $50,000 of IBM-donated cash to "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ). That's their allegation, one which PJ has declined to deny or even comment on until, quote, she gets "lawyered up".

You may now commence troll rating me for wanting to discuss SCO's actual core allegation rather than a silly strawman adjunct.

Re:Actually, they allege she's funded by IBM (3, Informative)

mattt79 (1005999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18667007)

OSDL never gave $50,000 (or any other amount of money) to Groklaw.

OSRM (Open Source Risk Management), a completly different entity researching the need for imdemnification of Open Source projects, had briefly employed PJ.

Matt
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?