Torvalds Slams SCO (eWeek)
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."
Posted Aug 21, 2003 2:16 UTC (Thu)
by freethinker (guest, #4397)
[Link] (9 responses)
No need for a digital signature, that's definitely Linus ^_^
Posted Aug 21, 2003 3:08 UTC (Thu)
by stevegehl (guest, #3738)
[Link]
Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:47 UTC (Thu)
by mjr (guest, #6979)
[Link] (7 responses)
SCO's senior vice president Chris Sontag comments on the recent libel
by Linus Torvalds:
"This is all pure lies and we're looking into suing mr. Torvalds
for defamation of corporate character. It is our strict corporate
policy never to inhale."
Posted Aug 21, 2003 15:04 UTC (Thu)
by lyda (subscriber, #7429)
[Link] (1 responses)
(of course it's amusing that people still bring up that comment of clinton's and yet rarely discuss cocaine usage, awol, or lying to go to war... this must be one of those inverse priority issues that make me glad i moved to europe.)
Posted Aug 21, 2003 17:43 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link]
(of course it's amusing that people still bring up that comment of clinton's and yet rarely discuss cocaine usage, awol, or lying to go to war... this must be one of those inverse priority issues that make me glad i moved to europe.) It's not a case of inverse priority issues (not that those don't exist). It's just because "but I didn't inhale" is the single best example of attemplted weaseling that has evern been uttered by a politician. Not that the crime he was trying to weasel out of was particularly onerous, but the weasling was... well, it was just impressive. -Rob
Posted Aug 21, 2003 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 21, 2003 15:43 UTC (Thu)
by euvitudo (guest, #98)
[Link] (2 responses)
Furthermore, it's funny that they obfuscated the true copyright owners (SGI). I guess this was to make people think it was code to use against IBM. Funny.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 18:25 UTC (Thu)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
Posted Aug 23, 2003 20:37 UTC (Sat)
by dark (guest, #8483)
[Link]
Posted Aug 21, 2003 18:13 UTC (Thu)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
Hey,... couldnt this be a "obfuscated" confession of drog abuse ? OK,... we know that they dont inhale,... but they are not very specific about smoking or injecting... i dont belive that they throw it away, because it would be "criminal" waste of the good stuff that their Ma$ter must be sending them.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:19 UTC (Thu)
by dwalters (guest, #4207)
[Link] (1 responses)
Check out the reader vote that's been put in the top-right corner of the eWeek news article.
The poll question is "Is SCO Smoking Crack?"
It made me giggle, anyway.
Posted Aug 22, 2003 2:02 UTC (Fri)
by a9db0 (subscriber, #2181)
[Link]
Posted Aug 22, 2003 4:18 UTC (Fri)
by wolfrider (guest, #3105)
[Link]
--Can I get an AMEN? --I am so sick and tired of seeing all these articles about SCO. This stupid stunt has done nothing more than get them free publicity (even if it is mostly BAD publicity, people are still talking about the company.) --Make it STOP!!
Identity verification
"They are smoking crack."
I expected "we don't need no steenking SyS V code anyway. This is how REAL programmers do it."
Identity verification
In other news
yeah, that would be a sco response. first it would likely be a lie and second linus said "smoking" not "inhaling" so it misrepresents what he said. oh, and a third indicator that it could be a valid sco statement - it would be ripped off from something someone else said over a decade ago.In other news
In other news
And that's the actual response by Blake Stowell, the Director of Public Relations for The SCO Group. Basically it says "No, you are wrong and we are right".
In other news
So, all those people who signed NDAs to see some examples of "offending code" were duped into thinking that they were seeing some of their real evidence? That is too funny. Why would anyone want to sign an NDA just to see this? Mr. Stowell's claim is that this is not even the code they accused IBM of "stealing". Too funny. I guess some people really are that gullible.In other news
yeah !...In other news
And i made a fool of myself in the big day of "Slide Slipingt", trying to argue that they could say that that code wasn't the one at issue...
This also shows that all those so-called analysts that saw the code under NDA asked no relevant questions. Simple ones like "Why does it say Copyright xxxxxx? Whose copyright was that? If it's not IBM, why are you showing me this code?" should have occurred to them.
In other news
"It is our strict corporate policy never to inhale..."In other news
Poll on eWeek site: "Is SCO Smoking Crack"
And at this point (10:00pm EST) the Yes votes are running about 98%.
Poll on eWeek site: "Is SCO Smoking Crack"
> Torvalds: Hey, until they can be bothered to show something real, I don't think it's even worth discussing. Torvalds Slams SCO (eWeek)