Torvalds Bitchslaps SCO in New Interview

[Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñoßí]

I think it's safe to say that Linus Torvalds believes SCO has nothing
to backup its allegations about Linux utilizing its code...

"eWEEK: For its part though, SCO has said that there are so many lines
of code, and a variety of applications and devices that use that code,
that simply removing the offending code would not be technically
feasible or possible and would not solve the problem. Do you agree?

Torvalds: They are smoking crack. Their slides said there are [more
than] 800,000 lines of SMP code that are "infringing," and they are
just off their rocker. The SMP code was written by a number of Linux
people I know well (I did a lot of the SMP IRQ scalability myself,
personally), so their claims are just ludicrous. And they claim they
own JFS [journaled file system technology] too. Whee. They're not shy
about claiming ownership of other people's code—while at the same time
beating their breasts about how they have been wronged. So the SCO
people seem to have a few problems keeping the truth straight, but if
there is something they know all about, it's hypocrisy."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227150,00.asp

 

[AverageJoe]

You do not need to post this to a windows newsgroup. I am a Linux user for
the past year and a half. Windoze people like their platform and are happy
with it. Posting nonrelavant topics just turns them off.

I can not find any justification for posting this to a windoze newsgroup.

 

[Lord Blacklight]

<snip>

And I still believe it's Microsoft behind all that, using SCO as a
front. It would make a lot of sense.

Nils

 

[AB PP]

You do not need to post this to a windows newsgroup. I am a Linux user for
the past year and a half. Windoze people like their platform and are happy
with it...

I disagree. The only reasons I have heard from Windows user to use it are:

1) It's what everybody I know use.
2) It's what came with my computer.
3) It's what they make me use at work.
4) Solving Windows problems is how I earn my living.

 

[Erik Pigshit]

I disagree. The only reasons I have heard from Windows user to use it
are:

The "only" ones?

Oh I see (below), it would seem that you only heard from _three_ Windows
users.

1) It's what everybody I know use.
2) It's what came with my computer.
3) It's what they make me use at work.

So? What's wrong with those reasons? Considering the alternatives to
Windows, *ANY* reason is a good one.

4) Solving Windows problems is how I earn my living.

That's scary!

 

[Bill Unruh]

(e-mail address removed) (AB PP) writes:

]> You do not need to post this to a windows newsgroup. I am a Linux user for
]> the past year and a half. Windoze people like their platform and are happy
]> with it...


]I disagree. The only reasons I have heard from Windows user to use it are:

]1) It's what everybody I know use.
]2) It's what came with my computer.
]3) It's what they make me use at work.
]4) Solving Windows problems is how I earn my living.
Actually the most common:
It runs the programs which I know how to use.

 

[Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñoßí]

<snip>

And I still believe it's Microsoft behind all that, using SCO as a
front. It would make a lot of sense.

M$ didn't necessarily come up with the plan, SCO saw its death on the
horizon and this was their last desperate attempt to stay afloat.

But what M$ DID do was immediately inject a few million into SCO once
it heard what was going on. This gave SCO a needed boost for its legal
campaign and operating costs.

 

[AB PP]

The "only" ones?

YES, THE "ONLY" ONES.

Oh I see (below), it would seem that you only heard from _three_ Windows
users.

MADE THAT 3 x 1000.

So? What's wrong with those reasons? Considering the alternatives to
Windows, *ANY* reason is a good one.


That's scary!

INDEED, IT SHOWS THERE'S A BUNCH OF PEOPLE DEPENDING
ON CRAP FOR THEIR LIVING.

 

[Tom Lake]

YEAH, RIGHT!

EVERY SINGLE USEFUL PROGRAM IN WINDOWS IS ALSO AVAILABLE
IN LINUX OR MAC OS, OR BETTER-CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES.

Linux users haven't mastered the Caps Lock key yet? If anyone could
provide me with Linux drivers for every piece of hardware I own, I'd
probably switch. Windows drivers are easy to find but I've never seen Linux
drivers for my Aiptek cameras, Epson printers and scanners, the C-Media
sound chips on my mobo, etc., etc. Also Winmodems are a lot cheaper than
Linmodems (ARE there such things?) Actually, Lindows seems like a good
combination of the two from the descriptions at least. I don't know of
anyone actually using it.

Tom Lake

 

[Harri Mellin]

Windows drivers are easy to find

not if you have old hardware

 

[Bill Unruh]

]> YEAH, RIGHT!
]>
]> EVERY SINGLE USEFUL PROGRAM IN WINDOWS IS ALSO AVAILABLE
]> IN LINUX OR MAC OS, OR BETTER-CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES.

]Linux users haven't mastered the Caps Lock key yet? If anyone could

seems not.

]provide me with Linux drivers for every piece of hardware I own, I'd
]probably switch. Windows drivers are easy to find but I've never seen Linux
]drivers for my Aiptek cameras, Epson printers and scanners, the C-Media
]sound chips on my mobo, etc., etc. Also Winmodems are a lot cheaper than

Not that it makes any difference, but the primary reason is because
companies a) refuse to write drivers for their equipment for Linux
(while they do for windows-- ie all those drivers are not from MS), and
b) refuse to release the specifications so that others can write the
drivers for them. Ie, winmodems are penny wise/pound foolish devices.


]Linmodems (ARE there such things?) Actually, Lindows seems like a good

Even for windows I would strongly advise against using winmodems. They
are sound cards which the computer must program to emit the correct
whistles, etc and analyse the incoming sounds to make them pretend to be
modems. Ie, they are very computational intensive, and bog down the
machine.

]combination of the two from the descriptions at least. I don't know of
]anyone actually using it.

 

[Miguel De Anda]

Linux users haven't mastered the Caps Lock key yet? If anyone could
provide me with Linux drivers for every piece of hardware I own, I'd
probably switch. Windows drivers are easy to find but I've never seen Linux
drivers for my Aiptek cameras, Epson printers and scanners, the C-Media
sound chips on my mobo, etc., etc. Also Winmodems are a lot cheaper than
Linmodems (ARE there such things?) Actually, Lindows seems like a good
combination of the two from the descriptions at least. I don't know of
anyone actually using it.

Tom Lake

With the money you save from not buying windows products, you can buy better
hardware. Think about it:

Windows XP Pro - $299
M$ Office XP Standard - $399

Total M$: $698

Linux OS - $0
Flash Reader - $20
Real Modem - $80
OpenOffice - $0
Sound Card - $60 (I've never had any problems with any of my soundcards btw,
but I guess)

(My Epson printer works fine, Model C82)

Total Linux: $160

Total Savings: $538

Heck, you could probably get yourself a new harddrive, memory and video card
as well with linux.

 

[foo]

With the money you save from not buying windows products, you can buy better
hardware. Think about it:

Windows XP Pro - $299
M$ Office XP Standard - $399

Total M$: $698

When $499 buys a brand new P4/2.4 with Office XP, CDRW, 256M, etc.,
why bother with that?

 

[Incognitus]

With the money you save from not buying windows products, you can buy better
hardware. Think about it:

Windows XP Pro - $299
M$ Office XP Standard - $399

Total M$: $698

Linux OS - $0
Flash Reader - $20
Real Modem - $80
OpenOffice - $0
Sound Card - $60 (I've never had any problems with any of my soundcards btw,
but I guess)

(My Epson printer works fine, Model C82)

Total Linux: $160

Total Savings: $538

Heck, you could probably get yourself a new harddrive, memory and video card
as well with linux.

Then why are you using?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

 

[Joh N.]

Incognitus, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

Then why are you using?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Hmm...it couldn't possibly be he posted from work? Nah...how could that be?
Think outside the bun next time.

Joh N.

 

[foo]

True enough, but do you actually get an retail XPee CD with that or one of
those worthless 'system restore' CD's?

Dunno. Who cares?

Plus, you still have a worthless
winmodem inside this system

Who uses modems anymore? And if they do, chances are a winmodem will
work just fine. What, concerned about the .0005% CPU hit on a P4/2.4
CPU? LOL.

(and more than likely a no-name brand too, so that
finding drivers for it if you lost the CD would be a real bitch).

Uh, no. It takes 30 seconds at Dell's web page.

The other
hardware too, except for the cpu...is that all no-name stuff? Do you know what
brand/type MOBO it has?

Oh - some no-name company starting with an I, having an NTE in the
middle, ending with an L. LOL. Give it up.

 

[Joh N.]

Dunno. Who cares?

Apparently you don't have much of a clue to the problems this poses. I wonder
why I wasn't surprised by this?

Who uses modems anymore? And if they do, chances are a winmodem will
work just fine. What, concerned about the .0005% CPU hit on a P4/2.4
CPU? LOL.

Well, dimwit, far more still use dialup than anything else...price is one
reason, distance from hub is another.

"In June, 7% of U.S. households had a broadband connection, up from 4.7% in
January. Cable modem service penetration grew from 3% in Q'1 of 2000 to 8% in
June 2001. Wireless and satellite connections, still trivial at around 200,000
subs, grew 73% over the first half of last year."
<http://www.catv.org/bbb/2002/arch-030802.html>

Wow. A whole 7%. Let's even be nice, and say now, in 2003, there's a whole 20%
(it may even be much less, since this economic depression).
Besides, you seem to have missed the whole point about the winmodem thing
anyway.

Uh, no. It takes 30 seconds at Dell's web page.

You said nothing about if it was a 'brand name' you dummy. Another point of
the post you seemed to have missed. You keep missing and losing the
point...have you checked the top of your head?

Oh - some no-name company starting with an I, having an NTE in the
middle, ending with an L. LOL. Give it up.

Again, since you didn't say anything about who makes this $499 wonder you
spoke of, of course it'd be easy to find out.
Tell me...don't they teach dialectic in your highschool?

Joh N.

 

[Bob McConnell]

One can have Windows DDK for about $15. It contains everything for writing
kernel drivers (except for filesystem drivers). There is no strings
attached, like NDA.

Since I've never worked with any kernel that was more than a few
hundred lines of code, I have no way to review the DDK. Is it
complete, thorough and documented enough that a well designed and
fully optimised driver could be written and debugged with it, or are
there gaps in the information that can only be filled by additional
components only available under NDA?

Then the obvious question is whether that holds true for the 2003 and
whatever is next DDKs as well. Or would there be an advantage to
agreeing to focus the driver expertise on Windows in order to get the
information on the next release before the DDK was made available to
the general public?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

 

[Bill Unruh]

]On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Alexander Grigoriev"

]>]>>
]>> The question has always been how much of this is because Micro$oft
]>> won't release all of the information needed to write those drivers if
]>> the hardware vendor doesn't sign an exclusive contract that won't
]>> allow them to provide either drivers or documentation for other
]>> systems. Of do they get other benefits for colluding with this
]>> convicted criminal organization?
]>>
]>> Bob McConnell
]>> N2SPP
]>>
]>
]>One can have Windows DDK for about $15. It contains everything for writing
]>kernel drivers (except for filesystem drivers). There is no strings
]>attached, like NDA.

That may be, but that helps very little. It is the detailed commands
which have to be sent to the hardware that is needed. Thus, if the
manufacturer refuses to release that info, writing adriver is
impossible.


]>

]Since I've never worked with any kernel that was more than a few
]hundred lines of code, I have no way to review the DDK. Is it
]complete, thorough and documented enough that a well designed and
]fully optimised driver could be written and debugged with it, or are
]there gaps in the information that can only be filled by additional
]components only available under NDA?

]Then the obvious question is whether that holds true for the 2003 and
]whatever is next DDKs as well. Or would there be an advantage to
]agreeing to focus the driver expertise on Windows in order to get the
]information on the next release before the DDK was made available to
]the general public?

]Bob McConnell
]N2SPP

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

I haven't heard that the company where I work, would "sign an exclusive
contract with MS that won't allow them to provide either drivers or
documentation for other systems" for getting "all of the information needed
to write those drivers".

The DDK documentation used to be a bit terse in some important design
guides, but Windows XP DDK and Windows 2003 DDK docs have become very good.
One also may want to read Walter Oney's excellent book on writing WDM
drivers.