Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st May 2008 19:41 UTC
Legal Speaking of soap operas, there's one soap opera in the technology world that has been going on for so long that nobody really seems to know why it was ever started, whatever all the different moves have been over the years, or whoever lost or won which battle. Just like a true soap opera, you can just jump right in the middle of it and feel like you've always been part of the regular audience. The SCO saga is such a case.
Order by: Score:
They lost the plot a long time ago
by shotsman on Thu 1st May 2008 20:21 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

You would have thought that SCO would at least get their stories straight after all this time. If their head honchos can't tell the same story then they are weel and truly up the creek without a paddle.
There are many people who want sco to lose and do so badly but I expect that they all thought that a better fight would be put up when they got their day in court.

IANAL etc, but if they continue to contradict themselves they will severely limit their ground for an appeal in the future. That always assumes they have not gone to Chap 7 by then...

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

In all fairness to him Chris Sontag has moved on and is now working for a different company. It is not in his interest to lie in order to maintain a unified front for SCO against Novell, IBM and RedHat. Attempting to do so now would only risk getting nailed as a criminal perpetrator, co-conspirator or accessory. His testimony rings true to me since he was a PR guy and not a real techno-type. He is no longer part of the fraud ; trying to help them now would no doubt endanger his present job unless he needs to display some misplaced sense of loyalty in order to stay with his current employer. That will be Darl's only functional future resume highlight: I'm not afraid to lie when it's needed by the company!

Darl has to continue to try to maintain the facade that SCO acted reasonably and responsibly and that this is all just a big mistake on the part of those counter-suing and/or making Lanham Act claims against SCO. But once the [counterclaim] prosecution lawyer got him to assert that what he put in the SEC filings was true then what he is saying now about licensing fees, the meaning of the licensing agreements and the relative values of SysVrX and Unixware of code must be false.

Reply Score: 2

Darl
by Clinton on Thu 1st May 2008 20:34 UTC
Clinton
Member since:
2005-07-05

I think everyone who has ever seen the sun, including Darl, knows that this was just a ploy to begin with, but Darl can't ever admit that because it would put him in a variety of hot water.

We don't tend to punish people for being the town idiot, but we do punish people for doing things like taking advantage of the stock market, etc.

Darl is doomed to parrot this nonsense the rest of his life, I think.

Reply Score: 9

SCO is dead
by ciplogic on Thu 1st May 2008 20:50 UTC
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

SCO is dead, he only state things, as did Steve Balmer. The matter that most Linux users don't care. Even enterprises. The same happened when MS was attacked cause they break the MP3 patent. The user are not concerned. The buzz-word is Linux, the good thing is only that peoples cares about Linux and make them known with all that words, instead to get that fear! OS X is "very Linux like, very much so!" look at the first presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII (is Linux-like). The thing that matters, is that process-separation, and etc. are like Unix from '77, but what matter, is that Linux is not at the '77 year level. As not Windows is at level of Windows 3.1 + OS/2. That is the foundation, but is not the OS/2, is much more improved.

SCO itself instead innovating will die as a bad image company, a company that will not compete with software, they compete with patents! Even they say that they bought the Unix copyrights, and is true, the image itself is bad: which company will take patents to sue you! What happend when Macrosoft, when will attack FreeDos, or Wine cause they emulate their stack of software? Or a company will say: TCP-IP is patented, and no one may use it without paying for it?

So, I will not care much on SCO if they will not offer more than patents portofolio!

SCO needs grow, elsewhere is a dead company for me and I will never buy it Linux or Unix from them if I will know that I will remain locked in with SCO. Migrating to any other simialar OS means to care on patent issues, so no reason to risk my future with a lock-in.

I will not take the today convenience for headache for tomorrow.

Edited 2008-05-01 20:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kittynipples
by kittynipples on Thu 1st May 2008 20:54 UTC
kittynipples
Member since:
2006-08-02

"Linux Is a Copy of UNIX"

I thought this was common knowledge?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by kittynipples
by umccullough on Thu 1st May 2008 21:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by kittynipples"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Linux Is a Copy of UNIX"

I thought this was common knowledge?


And only copying someone's ideas to make something similar, or exactly the same, is *not* the same as copying copyrighted works ;)

Thus Darl is a moron if he believes this is why Linux is wrong.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples
by superman on Thu 1st May 2008 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kittynipples"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> And only copying someone's ideas to make something similar, or exactly the same

Linux implement POSIX. Linux does not copy Unix.
It's like Firefox implementing HTML. Firefox is not copying IE, It's just implementing HTML.

Reply Score: 14

v RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by amadensor on Thu 1st May 2008 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples
by aesiamun on Thu 1st May 2008 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Ouch...IE innovative?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kittynipples
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 2nd May 2008 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

I wondered if he wasn't implying the opposite.. hard to tell as Netscape used some NCSA Mosaic code while Internet Explorer used some Spyglass Mosaic code.

EDIT should have read the other pages. Seems this has been addressed already ;)

Edited 2008-05-02 15:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kittynipples
by aesiamun on Fri 2nd May 2008 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kittynipples"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Mark Andreessen co wrote Mosaic and he then co founded netscape. I'm fairly certain that netscape is based on the original Mosaic Communicator...or is the original mosaic communicator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communications_Corporation#Ea...

Specifically:
'The Mosaic Netscape web browser utilized some NCSA Mosaic code with NCSA's permission, as noted in the application's "About" dialog box. '

Edited 2008-05-02 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

To be fair, the X in ajax came from ie, inner/outerHTML came from ie, element.style.cssProp syntax came from ie.

IE was innovative once upon a time, it just hasn't been for close to a decade or so

Reply Score: 3

pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

Correction: only one company was innovative enough to buy another company's code and rename it Internet Explorer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples
by systyrant on Thu 1st May 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Wasn't Mozilla a spin off of Netscape or something like that?

Sadly IE, until version 8, hasn't done very well (from a technical point of view) at making a really good quality browser that supports generally accepted standards laid out by the W3C. Of course that hasn't hurt it's ability to dominate the market, but it's made designing a compliant website a lot hard. Thanks for the innovation Microsoft. We could've done it without you. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by kittynipples
by pixel8r on Fri 2nd May 2008 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

Wasn't Mozilla a spin off of Netscape or something like that?


Sort of...but I dont think Mozilla and Netscape were ever 2 separate entities competing with each other.
Netscape basically opened their source code and I'm not sure of the exact link between netscape and the mozilla foundation but they were linked. So its more like mozilla is the successor of netscape, rather than one company COPYing another company's product.
in the case of IE, microsoft basically licensed someone else's code (spyglass Inc's Mosaic, then the most popular browser) and modified it to make Internet Explorer. I'm not sure how much (if any) of that original code still exists in IE however so its probably fair to say that both IE and Mozilla in their current forms are original products.

As for Linux being a copy of unix...its been public knowledge that linux was created to duplicate many UNIX API's etc (or POSIX) so that UNIX apps could run under it. There was no copying of code as such.

I believe the whole case has nothing to do with Linux or SCO and everything to do with how much SCO execs made from messing with the stock market. What we are seeing now is just people doing what they need to do to avoid being found out...just an opinion...

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by kittynipples
by hussam on Sat 3rd May 2008 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

Wasn't Mozilla a spin off of Netscape or something like that?

Yes, as I understand Netscape released the source and the mozilla project started.

If I remember correctly, around the beginning of mozilla 1.5, major changes were made that broke how many sites with tables, etc.. looked. Then those issues were fixed in 1.7 just in time for Firefox 1.0 release.

Edited 2008-05-03 01:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples
by lemur2 on Thu 1st May 2008 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No, Firefox is copying Netscape, and both Netscape and IE are copying Mosaic, however, only one of them had to use Mosaic code to do it. The other line was innovative enough to implement it on their own.


No. You have the wrong idea here.

"Copying" in a legal sense (ie in order to violate copyright) requires that there be a direct copy of the lines of code. There are no lines of code from Mosaic in Netscape. There are probably no lines of code left from Netscape in Firefox.

Just because two things perform the same function does not mean they are copies of one another.

Is a diesel engine the same as a gas turbine engine (aka a jet engine)? No? Is either one the same as a petrol engine? No? Are they copies of one another ... of course not. Yet all three of these different engine types burn hydrocarbon fuels and produce rotary motion.

Edited 2008-05-01 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples
by mallard on Fri 2nd May 2008 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

Actually, Firfox *is* Netscape, at least it's based on Netscape's source code.

IE *is* Mosaic "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." (From IE6 About... box), although IE7 apparently no longer contains any Mosaic code, it is still highly likely to have design/structure features inherited from Mosaic.

Netscape did copy Mosaic to an extent, but Mosaic was far from the first graphic web browser (WorldWideWeb, ViolaWWW and Erwise all pre-dated it).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kittynipples
by aesiamun on Fri 2nd May 2008 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kittynipples"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

wrong...

'The Mosaic Netscape web browser utilized some NCSA Mosaic code with NCSA's permission, as noted in the application's "About" dialog box. '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communications_Corporation#Ea...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by Oliver on Thu 1st May 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Well HTML is free, try to implement e.g. H264 and sell the product. Tadaaaa, so it has nothing to do if you implement something, but if it's free to use!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by tyrione on Sun 4th May 2008 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

> And only copying someone's ideas to make something similar, or exactly the same

Linux implement POSIX. Linux does not copy Unix.
It's like Firefox implementing HTML. Firefox is not copying IE, It's just implementing HTML.


Linux mostly implements POSIX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples
by Oliver on Thu 1st May 2008 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kittynipples"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Welcome to reality, copy something of the behaviour of Apples beloved OS and they will sue you until the end of the world ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by umccullough on Thu 1st May 2008 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Welcome to reality, copy something of the behaviour of Apples beloved OS and they will sue you until the end of the world ;)


That isn't copyright infringement (unless you copied their logo and/or artwork directly) - that's trademark and/or patent infringement.

These are completely different topics. It's unfortunate that people get those mixed up so much.

edit: added clarification on logo/artwork

Edited 2008-05-01 23:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by lemur2 on Thu 1st May 2008 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Welcome to reality, copy something of the behaviour of Apples beloved OS and they will sue you until the end of the world ;)


Apple's beloved OS isn't a public standard.

POSIX is a public standard.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kittynipples
by javiercero1 on Fri 2nd May 2008 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

And then reality answers back that Apple already sued Microsoft and lost.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kittynipples
by lemur2 on Thu 1st May 2008 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kittynipples"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

""Linux Is a Copy of UNIX" I thought this was common knowledge?
And only copying someone's ideas to make something similar, or exactly the same, is *not* the same as copying copyrighted works ;) Thus Darl is a moron if he believes this is why Linux is wrong. "

Linux isn't wrong ... in exactly the same way that any collaboration isn't wrong.

If we didn't have collaborative works ... there would be no innternational telephone network. There would be no shipping. There would be no international flights.

There would be no food industry, no agriculture. There would be no industry at all, in fact, without collaboration and working interfaces between the efforts of separate parties.

Collaboration ... in the sense of many parties working together to make separate small pieces work well together to form a wider system ... is an essential engineering process. Without it, our species would revert to living in caves.

Linux implement POSIX. Linux does not copy Unix.
It's like Firefox implementing HTML. Firefox is not copying IE, It's just implementing HTML.


Exactly so. Linux is a collaborative work of many parties ... it is an operating system that implements the POSIX standards.

There is nothing at all "wrong" with that in any way at all ... despite the greed and delusions of some corporate money-grubbing types.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kittynipples
by ari-free on Fri 2nd May 2008 01:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by kittynipples"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

linux is a *reimplementation* of unix. freebsd is closer to a copy of an actual unix.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kittynipples
by Soulbender on Fri 2nd May 2008 03:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by kittynipples"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not common knowledge because it isn't.
Linux is a unix-like OS that conforms, to various degrees, with the POSIX standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kittynipples
by xylifyx on Sat 3rd May 2008 21:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by kittynipples"
xylifyx Member since:
2008-05-03

UNIX is a family of similar operating systems and a trademark not an implementation. A set of specifications and tradition defines what UNIX is, not the origin of its source code.

To say that Linux is a copy of UNIX makes no sence. You could say that Linux is an implementation of UNIX or that Linux is a copy of SYSV.

Linux is not certified as a UNIX implementation but there is no theoretical reason to stop a Linux vendor to get a UNIX certification.

Reply Score: 1

Darl's A Dick
by yakirz on Thu 1st May 2008 20:56 UTC
yakirz
Member since:
2006-05-11

When will he shut up?

Reply Score: 9

RE: Darl's A Dick
by systyrant on Thu 1st May 2008 23:40 UTC in reply to "Darl's A Dick"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Never. Like you didn't know that.

Reply Score: 2

This again?
by orestes on Thu 1st May 2008 21:22 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought the amusement was over months ago... <breaks out popcorn>

Reply Score: 3

Linux is a copy of UNIX??
by Morgan on Thu 1st May 2008 21:26 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

What crack is he smoking? If he truly believes this, then I have to wonder what the hell he thinks BSD is.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux is a copy of UNIX??
by anomie on Thu 1st May 2008 21:54 UTC in reply to "Linux is a copy of UNIX??"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

If I had to take a WAG, he probably considers BSD to be a less easy target with less deep pockets.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linux is a copy of UNIX??
by almahdi on Thu 1st May 2008 22:10 UTC in reply to "Linux is a copy of UNIX??"
almahdi Member since:
2005-11-25

I do wonder what he thinks about BSD too

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is a copy of UNIX??
by Oliver on Thu 1st May 2008 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a copy of UNIX??"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Do you remember the trial between AT&T and BSDI back in the nineties? Well it's important, the clarified it out of court. And guess why? Because there is (was) lots of BSD code in UNIX ;)

http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

"The second example says nothing about Linux, since it's obviously not SCO code. It does, however, suggest that SCO is abusing the BSD license"

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux is a copy of UNIX??
by Oliver on Thu 1st May 2008 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a copy of UNIX??"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

If you have a single clue about the heritage of BSD you wouldn't ask such a silly question.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by steveh2005
by steveh2005 on Thu 1st May 2008 21:51 UTC
steveh2005
Member since:
2007-06-28

I suppose then that if McBride had twin daughters, he'd think they're the same girl!

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by steveh2005
by helf on Thu 1st May 2008 22:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by steveh2005"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

well, they'd have the same Look and Feel (c/tm) ^_^

ok, I'm going to hell for that one.

Reply Score: 8

Comment by sonic2000gr
by sonic2000gr on Thu 1st May 2008 23:06 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].


McBride is a bad copy of human DNA. Someone revoke the license, please...

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by sonic2000gr
by systyrant on Thu 1st May 2008 23:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by sonic2000gr"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

He's a good argument against cloning isn't he. ;)

Reply Score: 4

I wonder when Microsoft will sue ...
by autumnlover on Thu 1st May 2008 23:40 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

... the ReactOS team for "copying" "their" system?

Reply Score: 2

systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

When it gains traction and they can make an example out of them.

Reply Score: 2

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

... the ReactOS team for "copying" "their" system?


That's why they have standards as to how code can get into their system. For example, there was a really big audit of their code recently - shut down work on the project for a while to my understanding - to help prevent Microsoft from being able to make any claims as such (patents, etc. aside) like SCO is trying (and failing) with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ml2mst
by ml2mst on Fri 2nd May 2008 00:03 UTC
ml2mst
Member since:
2005-08-27

Wasn't his real name McBribe and shouldn't his company be written as $<0

No?

Reply Score: 4

Dear me...
by capricorn_tm on Fri 2nd May 2008 03:39 UTC
capricorn_tm
Member since:
2005-12-31

... Microsoft server 2008 is already arrived?

My, how time flies when you're having fun does it not?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dear me...
by hyperdaz on Fri 2nd May 2008 19:20 UTC in reply to "Dear me..."
hyperdaz Member since:
2007-06-05

it says "Application Anywhere"

http://www.microsoft.com/heroeshappenhere/testdrive/windows-server-...

System Check
Checking for the javascript support
This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.

Checking for IE6.0 or higher
This site requires IE6.0 or above.

Checking for the ActiveX control to be installed

"Application Anywhere" fails to run oh cant be anywhere then can it...

Reply Score: 1

this is getting old
by happycamper on Fri 2nd May 2008 06:35 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

it's not a copy. their is no UNIX code in linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: this is getting old
by lemur2 on Fri 2nd May 2008 06:55 UTC in reply to "this is getting old"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

it's not a copy. their is no UNIX code in linux.


It was already old five years ago.

SCO said to IBM: "Linux is a copy of UNIX".

IBM said: "Show us where".

SCO said: "No, we won't. Give us money".

... at that point, all of five years ago, we already knew that there is no UNIX code in linux.

Reply Score: 3

McBride is a copy.
by silicon on Fri 2nd May 2008 15:39 UTC
silicon
Member since:
2005-07-30

McBride is a copy of an ape.

Reply Score: 2

Huh...
by skwirlmaster on Fri 2nd May 2008 17:20 UTC
skwirlmaster
Member since:
2006-02-17

Not exactly sure why anyone would be amazed that Daryl would say that... I mean he led his company down the garden path of threatening it's market, and tangling with giants.

Anything he does at this point is just staying the course.

Reply Score: 2

Apples and Oranges
by fretinator on Fri 2nd May 2008 18:19 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

As mentioned above, UNIX is a specification. There are different implementations of that specification (or a specific version of the specification, to be exact), and only the Open Group (iirc) can "bless" ann implementation as UNIX. Linux, on the other hand is a unix-like OS. It implements much of the POSIX standard.

There is no such thing as the "UNIX" code. You can't copy "UNIX" code into your OS, it does not exists. However, there implementations of the standard that can be called UNIX. Thus, it would be more appropriate (technically, not actually) to say Linux is a copy of AIX, or Linux is a copy of SCO Openserver. Or you could say Linux took System V code. But you cannot say Linux is a copy of UNIX. Unless you are Darl, of course!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apples and Oranges
by google_ninja on Fri 2nd May 2008 19:42 UTC in reply to "Apples and Oranges"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

POSIX is a standard, UNIX is a trademark

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apples and Oranges
by fretinator on Fri 2nd May 2008 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Apples and Oranges"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

But in order you call your product by the trademarked name "UNIX", you must implement the Single UNIX Specification (currently version 3). So, to split hairs, I am referring to the Single UNIX Specification. Woohoo!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apples and Oranges
by lemur2 on Sat 3rd May 2008 00:54 UTC in reply to "Apples and Oranges"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As mentioned above, UNIX is a specification. There are different implementations of that specification (or a specific version of the specification, to be exact), and only the Open Group (iirc) can "bless" ann implementation as UNIX. Linux, on the other hand is a unix-like OS. It implements much of the POSIX standard.

There is no such thing as the "UNIX" code. You can't copy "UNIX" code into your OS, it does not exists. However, there implementations of the standard that can be called UNIX. Thus, it would be more appropriate (technically, not actually) to say Linux is a copy of AIX, or Linux is a copy of SCO Openserver. Or you could say Linux took System V code. But you cannot say Linux is a copy of UNIX. Unless you are Darl, of course!


Sigh!

Linux is not a copy of AIX, and Linux is not a copy of SCO Openserver, and Linux is not a copy of any UNIX.

Linux is a new codebase, built from the ground up. It is a mostly-compliant implementation of the POSIX standard.

Just like the situation where, even though both Fords and Hondas have petrol-driven engines, a Honda engine is not a copy of a Ford engine, so too is Linux NOT a copy of any other POSIX compliant OS.

Period.

Get this word "copy" right out of your head.

Linux is an mostly-complete re-implementation of the POSIX standard, written by collaboration over the Internet (mostly via mailing lists) starting from the efforts of Linus Torvalds in about 1990.

Edited 2008-05-03 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apples and Oranges
by miscz on Sat 3rd May 2008 03:02 UTC in reply to "Apples and Oranges"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Well, you are wrong in your argument. BSD, SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX were all forked from the Unix Time Sharing System at one time or another. They probably do not contain much of that old code if any at all but most recent direct descendant is Novell UnixWare from 2004.

Reply Score: 2

Where does Darl shop?
by fretinator on Fri 2nd May 2008 18:27 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see many Unix programming books, but there is a load of Linux Programming books. Maybe bookstores in Utah are different!

Reply Score: 3

We all know ...
by mind!dagger on Fri 2nd May 2008 18:38 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

We all know a certain CEO of bankrupt company is a complete and total ID10T.

What ID10T and his group of ID10Ts were trying to do is to create a "golden retirement parachute" from the Linux and Unix legal suit they had in their mind's eye.

They took on IBM and IBM took their collective butts to task. Now they are up against Novell, which, by ruling, owns UNIX, not SCO, and it will be great to watch the village ID10T get his butt spanked again.

Reply Score: 2

Wasn't Darl removed from SCO?
by raboof on Fri 2nd May 2008 19:38 UTC
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

I thought Darl McBride was going to be replaced - have plans changed or has this just not happened yet?

http://osnews.com/story/19433/McBride_Ousted_at_SCO_Lawsuits_To_Con...

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It's explained here, along with some other interesting history regarding Darl McBride that I did not know before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride

Reply Score: 2

And in recent news...
by melkor on Sat 3rd May 2008 06:45 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

McBride is a babbling idiotic fool!

Is he Steve Ballmer's twin by any chance?

Dave

Reply Score: 2

Firefox
by Novan_Leon on Mon 5th May 2008 20:28 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

Mozilla was a "copy" of Netscape. Firefox was redesigned from the ground up to replace Mozilla.

Reply Score: 1