TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6420 discussions

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Here is my response to SCO vs. Linux. The thing is, some of the things they are saying I agree with most emphatically, except that what those things really support is not SCO but our TUHS cause. Their main line, at least as I interpret it, is that UNIX is the real OS, UNIX is better than Linux, and Linux is just a naughty child that is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the adults. I agree wholeheartedly! I and many other UNIX bigots have been more vocal about this than SCO. BUT... UNIX is not what SCO means by this term, UNIX is V7 -> 4BSD! That is the real UNIX, USG is just a bad commercialized branch that no one ever really liked anyway! So to all those Fortune 1000 (or whatever that was) companies warned by SCO to stop running Linux, they should throw out those cheap micros, put all their old large VAXen back online, and run True UNIX, 4.3 BSD UNIX! And that *is* real UNIX, it comes directly from V7 and openly and proudly admits to this fact! Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court to determine what the hell it really is? But SCO probably won't be too happy about it as they just gave away the True UNIX (V7) to the World for free, and it's non-retractable. So if anything good comes out of this lawsuit it's that maybe, just maybe, BSD will finally get some attention and use over Linux. The Free Computing community doesn't have to suffer any loss whatsoever if SCO wins, we can instead just switch from Linux to the much better True UNIX, which is just as free but a lot more solid, mature, and True. And stick it to SCO and laugh diabolically at how they voluntarily made UNIX free without us having to seize it by force in a revolution. MS (donning the flameproof spacesuit)

21 years, 7 months

one person comments on his attorney's take on the SCO NDA

by Kenneth Stailey

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3752 In a nutshell the SCO NDA is a gag, a muzzle. It restricts you to only being able to say "yes there is common code" or "no there is no common code", nothing else may be said by you without violating the NDA. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by zmkm zmkm

Looks like sco has learned a lot from its cozying up with microsoft that is instead of meeting market challenges with better technology and competitive pricing against its competitors it resorts to the lowest form bullying marketing gimmicks and legal arm twisting just like microsoft style , so now they look like shooting themselves in the foot , good ! let's hope they shoot both feet !. >From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> >To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org >Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate >Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:32:55 -0700 (PDT) > >Two words: "version control". > >If the code that SCO purports is copied into Linux is known the version >control >archives will say who inserted it. It will be very easy to prove if >Caldera >inserted the code themselves. > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). >http://calendar.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

21 years, 8 months

Re: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Norman Wilson

Kenneth Stailey: Two words: "version control". If the code that SCO purports is copied into Linux is known the version control archives will say who inserted it. It will be very easy to prove if Caldera inserted the code themselves. Alas, two more words: "read-write storage." Version control info is stored in a file; how do we know (as SCalderaO might argue) that some hacker hasn't edited it after the fact to pretend something was put in by Caldera, or that they just lied about it to begin with? Version control data might be a useful, but I suspect only as a trail to specific people whose could then offer personal testimony about the history of a particular piece of code. The testimony would be harder to impeach than the code. Even a read-only copy of the version control info, e.g. a CD-ROM, isn't a lot more solid; some hard evidence would be needed of when that CD-ROM was written, beyond the easily-forged timestamps on the disc itself, and there could still be a claim that someone just lied when writing it, especially if there is a claim that malice was involved. So it still would probably come down to personal testimony. The usual disclaimer applies: I'm no lawyer. I'm just trying to think of counter-arguments, both those reasonable in abstract and those that seem to fit within the spirit of the complaint against IBM. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

21 years, 8 months

IBM doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat

by Kenneth Stailey

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030606S0039 Linux-Unix ties spelled out By Charles J. Murray EE Times June 6, 2003 (5:08 p.m. ET) PARK RIDGE, Ill. � SCO Group revealed the foundation of its legal battle with the Linux community, when it rolled out evidence of large blocks of Linux code that it contends were stolen from Unix. Analysts who saw the samples of the allegedly stolen code said the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a formidable legal case. �If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,� said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston). If SCO (Lindon, Utah) prevails in its legal efforts, many observers believe the action could, at best, result in hundreds of multimillion-dollar licensing payments from Fortune 1000 companies and, at worst, damage the foundation of open-source software. The revelations by the SCO Group Wednesday (June 4) followed a turbulent week in which the company exchanged both allegations and counterallegations with Linux supporters and with Novell Inc. (Provo, Utah), which has proclaimed in an open letter that SCO doesn't own the copyrights and patents to Unix, the operating system Novell sold to SCO in 1995. SCO's revelations also served as a response to the Linux community, which has complained over the past two months that it doubted SCO's contentions of theft because the company had not publicly disclosed evidence to support its claims. Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. �One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code,� said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence. �It's very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,� Claybrook said. DiDio and Claybrook said they were given side-by-side copies of Unix and Linux code to compare. Neither was paid for the work, and both agreed that the evidence suggests SCO has a strong case in its $1 billion suit against IBM Corp. and in its scrap with the Linux community. Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence. �Can SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to SCO?� asked Jon �Maddog� Hall, executive director of Linux International (Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. �Or did the code that's in SCO Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,� he said. SCO's battle with the open-source community grabbed headlines two months ago when it filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the state court of Utah against IBM, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition in the Linux market. In May, on the heels of that suit, SCO sent letters to Fortune 1,000 companies and 500 other businesses advising them to seek legal counsel if they use Linux. SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites. On May 28, Novell jumped into the fray, arguing that it never sold the Unix copyrights or patents to SCO when it consummated the Unix sale in 1995. In an open letter to SCO, Novell said, �Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests Novell has rejected.� Novell assailed In a subsequent news conference on May 30, SCO chief executive officer Darl McBride lashed out at Novell, restating SCO's claim that it owns the Unix operating system patents and implying that Novell has a hidden agenda for insisting otherwise. �We strongly disagree with Novell's position and view it as a desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community,� McBride said. Last week's analyst revelations, however, cast the battle in a new light. Until the analysts weighed in, Linux backers had relied on the defense that no one had seen proof of the allegations. Most said they didn't understand why SCO had refused to release the alleged infringements for public scrutiny. Some said they viewed SCO's actions as a means to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about open-source software. But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. �SCO is not trying to destroy Linux,� said DiDio of the Yankee Group. �That's silly. This is about paying royalties.� SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 (sic) software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year. Because it believes Linux incorporates code that's been �stolen� from Unix, it has warned hundreds of companies to stop using Linux or start paying royalties. �SCO's words were that Linux distributors and others who are using Linux are 'distributing stolen goods,' � said Claybrook of Aberdeen Group. Some companies, such as Sun Microsystems Inc., already pay hefty royalties to SCO for Unix. Two weeks ago, Microsoft Corp. joined that group when it agreed to pay royalties that were said to be �significantly in excess of $10 million,� one source said. Microsoft declined to comment on the details. Facing a choice Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal. Analysts said IBM will be the first company to face a choice in the legal matter. �If IBM wants to cure this problem, they could start by buying all the appropriate licenses and then paying SCO a billion dollars,� Claybrook said. �But SCO now says that a billion may not be enough to cover their damages.� Users of Linux also face a decision about whether to ignore SCO's letters or pay for a license. Analysts said companies may face that decision as soon as June 13, the date on which SCO has threatened to terminate its existing Unix contracts with IBM. Intellectual-property attorneys advise that companies that received a letter from SCO first determine whether IBM is indemnifying them, as users, against legal action. IBM, for its part, has said it doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat. �We believe our contact is perpetual and irrevocable,� an IBM spokeswoman said. �We've already paid for it, and there is nothing else we need to do.� Whether the legal actions will harm Linux in the long run is still open to question, experts said. The Linux community, unconvinced by SCO's actions, says it is still waiting for more solid proof that SCO really has a case. Most say that showing the alleged violations to a few analysts who sign nondisclosure agreements isn't enough. �We still don't see the need for secrecy,� said Hall of Linux International. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Aharon Robbins

What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given this book: The Design of the UNIX Operating System, Maurice J. Bach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. ISBN 0-13-201799-7. There's also these: The Magic Garden Explained: The Internals of Unix System V Release 4: An Open Systems Design, Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994. ISBN 0-13-098138-9. Unix Internals: The New Frontiers, Uresh Vahalia. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996. ISBN 0-13-101908-2. According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005. The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't contain actual source code, but let's get real here... Arnold

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Aharon Robbins

> add on the lion book Yes, that's been officially published, as well as in N-th generation photo copies. But the books I cited are for System V, including SVR4, which is much more relevant for the issue under discussion... Pfui. What a mess this whole business is. Arnold

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by zmkm zmkm

add on the lion book >From: Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> >To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org >Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate >Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:56:08 +0300 > >What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone >can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given >this book: > > The Design of the UNIX Operating System, > Maurice J. Bach. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. > ISBN 0-13-201799-7. > >There's also these: > > The Magic Garden Explained: > The Internals of Unix System V Release 4: > An Open Systems Design, > Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994. > ISBN 0-13-098138-9. > > Unix Internals: The New Frontiers, > Uresh Vahalia. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996. > ISBN 0-13-101908-2. > According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005. > >The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T >didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in >print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't >contain actual source code, but let's get real here... > >Arnold >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7

by zmkm zmkm

keneth thanks for the interesting infos , you solved a big puzzle for me :-) now I know why the screen is acting rather strange. ! cheers >From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> >To: zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 >Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 15:23:56 -0700 (PDT) > >Seveth Edition UNIX assumed hardcopy terminal and did not have a terminal >pager. > >Because of that assumption it also cannot backspace the way you would want >it >to on a CRT. > >Use "#" for backspace "@" for kill line (modern version is Ctrl-U). >Characters >will not be erased on screen but they will be discarded from the input >line. > >--- zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all > > > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 >? , > > like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . > > > > tks in advance for the infos. > > > > rgs to all > > zmkm > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). >http://calendar.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

21 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7

by zmkm zmkm

Thanks guys , I think I am going to stick to bwc suggestion it looks suitable , I got the book and found it so Ill work on it asap. tks >From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> >To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org >Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 >Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT) > > > Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:59:44 +1000 > > From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> > > To: The Unix Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> > > Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 > > > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:29:30PM +0000, zmkm zmkm wrote: > > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on >unix7 ? > > > , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . > > > > lp ? :-) > > Warren > >I think I remember being able to use the hardware Scroll Lock on a >VT05 terminal with some variety of Unix, perhaps late 6th Edition. > > carl >-- > carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego > clowenst(a)ucsd.edu >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

21 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS