Computers do have a heart

Actually the computers do have hearts, the system clock. The system clock controls the flow of electrons (blood) through the whole system. It is true that the power supply provides the push but it doesn't control how the power moves.

I'm sure we could go overboard with cute sayings. Like the fat of a computer is like microsoft software, it causes bloating and slows down all movement.

Jeff Hill

Hang the pirates, I say
US Senator promotes mass destruction of remote PCs

Hi Eva,

From all the backlash associated with proper and legal enforcement of copyright laws it appears most folks simply refuse to admit they are lowlife thieves and criminals. Denial has never been an effective legal defense and it's not about to work this time either. Theft is theft and it's about time people accept reality and change their illegal and immoral behavior or face the consequences. End of story.

If the PC's of SPAMMERS and those who illegally download music or violate other copyright laws could be remotely damaged this would be a VERY GOOD THING !!! Perhaps we could apply the same process to theft of software too??? This would be a VERY practical means to reduce piracy and make the thief pay a real penalty for their crime. I'm 100% for it. Let's start today!!!

Randy Hubbard

The war against FUD continues
Shutting down SCO's FUD machine

Hello Mike,

This is, indeed, an excellent way to proceed with identifying the commonality of sections of code between the code bases of Linux and whichever target OS the developers are concerned with. However, A few additional observations about this technique seem appropriate:

(1) This could be used to identify any commonality between the Linux source base, and AIX, UnixWare, or other potential targets.

(2) With information in hand comparing against multiple code bases, it would be possible to fully research and trace the code origins and establish a "chain of custody and ownership" for the code in question.

(3) Passing this information on to IBM and OSDL would open the doors clearly documenting a set of claims that can be made about the origin of any code in question. This has the potential to open up filing counter-claims against SCO.

(4) This is the kicker: if someone were able to apply this technique against the SCO code-bases any violations of the GPL (which have already been alleged) could be formally documented. This would allow for filing of counter-lawsuits against SCO for GPL violations.

There are two things about this technique that the original author has documented that impress me very, very significantly:

- This is a high-road approach to dealing with any issues surrounding the questions of this lawsuit. Instead of dealing in hyperbole and allegations, the Linux community can cut to the heart of the issue(s) and deal with them in an appropriate and timely and efficient manner (in fact, more efficiently than _any_ corporate entity we have seen thus far).

- The idea of implementing this as a self-auditing and control procedure as an in-line portion of the development process could be used to protect linux, or any other distribution, against further issues.

With the recent allegation made SCO against Linus directly, any action that can be taken to (a) disprove many of SCO's direct allegations, (b) show a willingness to self-monitor the development process will go a long way with the courts.

And to think: it took SCO over a year with a bunch of "experts" and lawyers examining to make a determination that there was a lot of common code. If they had truly had "experts" working on this issue, wouldn't they have thought of such an automated way to do the code base comparisons? Certainly this method isn't a no-brainer, but c'mon...a year? How many man-years of effort did they put into this?

I shudder to think about it.

George

Hey Mike,

I'm not sure the efforts described in the article are where SCO was looking...

http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2001/biographies/mckenney.php

http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/lse/Proposed-Basic-NUMA-API.htm

I guess the question is if Dynix/ptx code for NUMA support was (speculation) cut/pasted into Linux, does SCO have a case?

Name withheld, but supplied

Downloading SCO Openlinux
Sir,

Following the link you gave, I went to SCO's site and was eventually presented with a license agreement. Now if this really does allow downloading of Linux, this is a very clear breach of the GPL, since they are restricting further distribution of GPL software and appear to be claiming ownership of it.

I can't tell if it really allows you to download Linux, since there is no way I am going to agree to any contract with SCO (remember "contracts are more powerfull.....").

Name supplied