Heise reports from SCO Forum

Bruce

Yep, what fun. For reference, roughly the same thing is also in 2.11BSD.

algorithm malloc   /* algorithm to allocate map space */
input:   (1) map address  /* indicates which map to use */
         (2) requested number of units
output:  address, if succesful
         0, otherwise
{
    for (every map entry)
    {
        if (current map entry can fit in requested units)
        {
            if (requested units == number of units in entry)
                delete entry from map;
            else
                adjust start address of entry;
            return (original address of entry);
        }
     }
     return(0);
}

 
/* 
 * Allocate size units from the given 
 * map. Return the base of the allocated 
 * space. 
 * Algorithm is first fit. 
 */ 
malloc(mp, size) 
struct map *mp; 
{ 
   register int a; 
   register struct map *bp; 
 
   for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) { 
           if (bp->m_size >= size) { 
                   a = bp->m_addr; 
                   bp->m_addr =+ size; 
                   if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0) 
                       do { 
                           bp++; 
                           (bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr; 
                       while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size); 
                   return(a); 
           } 
   } 
   return(0); 
} 

 
                       while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size); 

 
                       } while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size); 

Intersting. If you look at the index page for that web site, it seems to indicate that the code in question originates from a version of Unix from 1979!

I don't know if that's good or bad, but it sure looks the same. Can someone unlighten us on the pedigree of the "32V Kernel", from which this code seems to originate?

What they show is a similar "header comment" and everybody is assuming is a piece of code that appeared in a book.

Far as is showed, THERE IS NO EQUAL CODE !

Would someone please type the entire Greek paragraph in and give us a font mapping? Something that demonstrates how the font is mapped back, so that there is a trace from the SCO slide to real code, would be useful. I could really use this for a news editorial, and have no idea how to type in Latin.

Bruce

Probably just a font error.

Probably not. My guess is that switch to a Greek font was a deliberate, if lame, attempt to obscure the code. If the code in question was just flashed up on the screen for 15 seconds, you probably wouldn't have had time to figure out what that obscured section meant. I know it took me longer than that to read it. They probably weren't expecting anyone to take a picture of the screen for later perusal; otherwise they wouldn't have chosen code that (as some of the other posters here have pointed out) is easily identified in its origin not to be proprietary to SCO.

Dion L. Johnson II - dionj@caldera.com
Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl.

Paul Hatch - phatch@caldera.com
Public Relations Manager at Caldera International

http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

For those not familiar with this incompatibility: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

So rather than a defense of "Caldera already opened the code", we have to go back to a defense of "that code has been out there for years anyway", which is the defense ESR has apparently been working to document for IBM. http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/05/25/1240238

When all the dust settles, all the harm and FUD that there is to be done, would already be done, all the dumps that there is to be done, would already be done..., and with a major DRM/paladium lock up around the corner, guess who gets to win ?

SCO is right now just the prospect of a ghost,... they give every indications of knowing it, and are just playing a show as a matter of diversion for clearing the bosses... and they are PRETTY DAMN GOOD AT IT.

The *abuse* that the rodent would take.... :)

-Rob

I belive, SCO must be pretty amazed to, specially thinking as i do, that when they mentioned thounsands, millions of lines of code, they could be preparing to feed more than one of this "DIVERSIONS" a week!

They know fully that they have no evidence whatsoever that will stand up to even the briefest scrutiny.

This incident demonstrates that. As soon as they release the smallest possible hint of evidence, two slides totaling maybe 40 lines of codes, thousands of nerds descend upon it, dive into Google, and appear minutes later waving embarassing references to fucking K&R (If there is ONE place for code to appear to rule out that said code can be called a "Trade Secret" then it is K&R), aswell as the equally unwelcome fact that SCO themselves BSD-licensed the code in question.

I predict that the same, or something very similar will happen to all other "evidence" that SCO publish. Furthermore I am fairly sure that SCO is aware of this.

There's no other plausible explanation for their behaviour.

How many people are actually using that code? Not many I would imagine.
SCO's threatened sue-the-users campaign would probably have trouble
locating any victims.