The SCO CEO Mcbride caused a cluster mess when he was at Pointserve, where he canned the existing business plan, then paid $$$$$ to outside consultants for a bogus business plan that made money off of "internet advertizing" yes pop-ups. (completly new direction for Pointserve, no way to make money either) I talked to him for a hour when I worked at Pointserve, he is All Smoke, Mirrors, and buzz words. He was eventually canned and Pointserve programmers left demoralized. Sorry SCO.

SCO officials are in the same class as the folks at Enron and the other corporates recently put under the light. They show themselves to be liars, cheats and thieves with the penchant for greed that knows no limits to ambition.

SCO said, they had three teams, including a team at MIT examine their "proof" of UNIX code improperly in Linux

1. There appears to be no such team at MIT. And SCO are back tracking on this claim.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N33/33sco.33n.html

2. Here is an example quote SCO made about MIT

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/sto...

"SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux and Unix source code for similarities. "All three found several instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux," said a SCO spokesman.

SCO is very funny.

They are going to do to UNIX what Microsoft has so far been unable to do. Kill it! Who will develope for a Unix OS system knowing the work could not also be used for another OS or knowing the work would then actually belong to SCO.

If you are an investor plan on a crash, from what I've seen so far the top hats at SCO must be doing so and after SCO's deserved death I'm sure they will come out quite well off.

SCO give up your hell job.

Bruce Perens has updated the analysis using a full slide set provided to him. http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

From the reading of past and present SCO claims, it would appear that SCOSource is the Borg of the computing world. Any code that comes in contact with AT&T System V code is assimilated and becomes the property of SCO - otherwise known as a derivative work.

The BPF code they show is similar to the original code in the BSD distribution, bpf_filter.c - including sharing the same data structure (hence the same code structure if form follows function). The Linux code was introduced in 2.1.75 - 21 Dec 97 - see the Linux HQ archive.

So SCO have to show that this code is innovative, and is a trade secret that gives advantage to Linux if shared, and that could not be reasonably derived from the existing BSD material, and was introduced into 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels.

The claims on RCU, NUMA and JFS as derivative works are questionable and possibly insulting.

To paraphrase Linus, smoking gun or smoking crack?

ém·i·nence grise

( P ) Pronunciation Key (-m-näs grz)
n. pl. ém·i·nence grises (-m-näs grz)

A powerful adviser or decision-maker who operates secretly or unofficially. Also called gray eminence.

My goodness, I stand (sit?) corrected. Those were the ONLY two slides shown.

SCO has displayed incompetence pretty much through this whole thing, I don't see how one slide more or less makes a difference. :)

Actually, this was a limited set of slides out of a larger set. I don't think IBM's lawyers of all people are that naive. :)

I read Bruce Perens and laughed with everyone else.

Has SCO shown its best example? If so, SCO is doomed! By the time the court case is over anyone with 25 cents should be able to buy the entire SCO empire.

Or has SCO purposely displayed absolute techical incompetence as a ploy to lull IBM's lawyers into complacency?