|
|
| Time Change in SCO v. IBM Hearing and SCO Asks to File a Declaration |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 03:14 PM EDT
|
More on Pacer, this time on SCO v. IBM. I think I need more hands and a dual-boot brain. All I can think about today are the tacks Novell has just thrown on SCO's path in that case, and it's mighty hard to focus on anything less ephochal.
Here's the latest: 659 [PDF]
Filed: 04/04/2006
Entered: 04/05/2006
Notice of Removing Counsel from Service List
Docket Text: NOTICE of REMOVING COUNSEL FROM SERVICE LIST filed by Anthony L. Marks, Mark A. Wagner.Attorney Anthony L. Marks, Mark A. Wagner will no longer receive notice from the court in this case including final judgment. (blk, )
660
Filed: 04/04/2006
Entered: 04/05/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, )
661 [PDF]
Filed: 04/10/2006
Entered: 04/12/2006
Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of Marc Rochkind filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, )
662
Filed & Entered: 04/12/2006
Notice of Hearing on Motion
Docket Text: AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: [619] Defendant's MOTION to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material: Motion Hearing previously set for 4/14/06 at 3:00 PM has been reset for 4/14/2006 at 11:00 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. [PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE].(jwd, ) So, Intel's lawyers bid the SCO litigation a fond farewell, after squishing SCO's subpoena like a bug. Also note the time change, those of you planning to attend the hearing on Friday regarding IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims. And SCO seems to have finally dredged up an expert willing to help them with Friday's hearing by submitting a declaration, if the court will allow his declaration at the last minute. SCO's proposed expert wrote a book on Unix in 1984, "Advanced UNIX Programming," and here's an article he did when he updated it 20 years later, "Has UNIX Programming Changed in 20 Years?" Here's what he did during those intervening 20 years, including becoming "a big fan of Linux". My question, as if to a little child, would have to be, "How big?" Being a fan of Linux is not the same as being an expert in Linux, of course. He admits in this article that he first got involved, strictly as a user, in Linux five years ago, and like many nonexperts in Linux, he wrongly thinks Linux started as an effort to morph Minix and he doesn't know the difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses in their effect. He was the original author of SCCS, however, so no doubt that will be the area of his relevant expertise. You can see on this part of his article why SCO wants him with them. And here's his blog. There you'll find a link to articles he's written in the last thirty years, only one of which, he says, is about computers. Here is what he writes about that: The Source Code Control System
This is a really well-known paper, and if you Google "Source Code Control System" in quotes you get about 155,000 hits. It's the system that all modern version-control systems are based on: RCS, CVS, SourceSafe, Subversion, you name it. SCCS itself is still used, too.
What happened was that I was hired by Bell Labs in 1970 as a Mechanical Engineer, but I really wanted to work only in software, so I managed to get myself transferred to a software division of the company two years later, and they asked me to do something about their source code mess. I was only about 24, had zero experience with large software projects, so, not knowing any better, I came up with SCCS.
There's no text file for the article; the PDF is a scan of a copy of the paper I had in my file cabinet. Sorry for the long download time.
SCCS has had one permanent effect on the way I work now: Whenever I have a few versions of the same source code file laying around in various directories, I say to myself, "You really should be using some version control." And, sometimes I actually do. He's probably a very nice fellow, but he isn't Randall Davis. It's the Randall Davis Declaration that SCO is clearly worried about and is trying to counter here. They must think IBM is favored to win its motion on Friday, absent some effort on SCO's part to raise a factual dispute of some kind. Any kind. SCO's Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Marc Rochkind reads like this: Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), respectfully moves for leave to file the Declaration of Marc Rochkind in opposition to IBM's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion to Limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material. SCO's Motion arises out of IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims, filed on February 13, 2006. Considering that IBM had not relied on any proposed expert testimony in support of that Motion, SCO did not submit any expert testimony with its Opposition Memorandum, filed on March 7, 2006. In support of its Reply Memorandum dated April 4, 2006, however, IBM submitted the Declaration of proposed expert Randall Davis. Accordingly, SCO seeks leave to address the issues raised in that Declaration by filing the Declaration of expert Marc Rochkind, and through this Motion gives IBM sufficient notice to consider that declaration in advance of the hearing on IBM's Motion, scheduled for April 14, 2006. Well, we'll see if the court views it as sufficient notice. SCO's motion is dated April 10. But what it means to me is that SCO is worried it will lose this motion, absent some way to raise a dispute regarding Randall Davis' Declaration. If you are planning to attend this hearing, be sure to call that morning to confirm it is really going to happen on the 14th. There could be some last-minute scrambling.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
| First First Post [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
| First Second Post [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
Very convenient for SCO if this is accepted now. If the court accepts this
testimony then IBM will have been robbed of the chance to comment on its
contents in their final brief made for this motion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
"So, yes, UNIX programming has changed a lot, because UNIX
and the subsystems that run on it are much more
complicated and the language technologies have evolved.
But it's still recognizably the same UNIX; and, while many
of us no longer program in C, we still acknowledge C as
the official UNIX reference and implementation language.
This is true even if the UNIX is really Linux, the
language is Python, and the application is a web site
that's running Apache and MySQL."
I am a user/hacker of GNU/Linux and I am always reading C
code and fixing things etc.
So WHO doesn't use C no more then in this world of *nix?
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
| PJ, I have a better idea: a dual-core brain. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
| Non-anonymous corrections here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
For all the other stuff that make GL so much a reading and learning experience.
Please think about making links clickable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Could it be, since he is the "father" of SCCS, could they be planning
a side attack on IBMs source control system? Maybe they think they can get more
out of IBM by telling the court that "all SC systems" have to have
'x'.
Just a thought.
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
You'd think an "expert" or "linux fan" might have mentioned
the source control system actually used for the kernel?
Perhaps he's jealous.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GIT? - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 05:58 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
| and a very good book it is as well.
My take :
Marc will declare that the
functions of Linux/SVRx all follow the Single Unix spec (which Linux aspires
to). I don't see that will help them, as it's a public specification, but they
probably felt they had to have something.
He might declare he believes Linux
is a Unix, but without even a contribution to the kernel (I checked the
contributors list), that's going to be a hard row to hoe.
He may (or may
not, depending on direct exposure) declare that AIX/Solaris/ also follow the
single unix spec.
Besides, this hearing is about whether there is sufficient
information in the disclosures to identify (by file and line) from SVRx ->
AIX -> Linux or some reasonable facsimile thereof. As he wrote SCCS, he may
declare he could find the links with that information (although I am unaware of
how). But even that would not avail SCOX, as if Marc could do it, so could SCOX
and they would have even less excuse for not providing a lineage of supposedly
misused code.
I found this ar
ticle which states:
Segment Two- Advanced Unix Programming- We
go HARD CORE tonight
We will be joined tonight by Marc j. Rochkind who authored
the book Advanced Unix Programming, a classic by anyones measure. Marc will
discuss with us tonight the value of Linux, as he's come to see it in the past
decade. He will also discuss his experience in rewriting his 1985 first edition
of "Advanced UNIX Programming", which just released as the Second Edition in
late April.
Marc worked at Bell Laboratories in the 1970s, when UNIX was still
in its infancy. It was there that Rochkind made several key contributions to
UNIX, notably the Source Code Control System. He wrote the first edition of
Advanced UNIX Programming in 1984. This complete revision benefits from his
years of post-Bell application systems development experience.
The new
edition has been meticulously crafted and tested on several unicies including;
FreeBSD, Darwin, Linux (SUSE) and Solaris 8. It is also very readable. Marc's
seasoning as a technologist has done nothing but improve a classic.
Note that his code was tested on Suse, and he refers Linux as
a Unix.
Beyond that, we'll just have to wait and see if Judge Kimball even
allows the declaration - I expect he will,
personally.
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for
Natural Stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
some links related to Mark Rochkind ( he is a Linux/open source friend or not
? ):
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What is UNIX ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 08:06 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Marc Rochkind is a programmer and he knows Unix. He worked alongside Thompson,
Ritchie and Kernighan. So I would not didmiss him quite so quickly as you do.
I don't know why SCO picked him. But he knows unix.
And I use his book all the time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Marc Rochkind - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Marc Rochkind - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 13 2006 @ 10:12 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
In his article, HE wrote:
..... and is even becoming a desktop
system for the masses. All of these uses were unanticipated in
1984.
UNIX on the desktop was anticipated when it was first
written. The original project was to create what would now be an office
automation system (roff -> [nt]roff +tbl and eqn for typsetting patent
applications etc.)
The GUI desktop wasn't much anticipated back then, but
UNIX on the desktop was a definite go. The Radio Shack Model 16 with
(Microsoft) Xenix (which later became SCO UNIX) was a desktop Unix system for
about $9,000 (almost half of which went for the 9MB hard drive!).
Unfortunately, it got overtaken by the IBM PC which was able to run in a lot
less.
(The Lisa was coming out by then, and the Xerox Star was reasonably
well known in computing circles, so you should have been able to see GUI for a
desktop coming).
I'll note here that, even though Xenix specified a need for
the hard drive, I was able to build a usable system for desktop work that ran
off of two 1MB (8") floppy disks. -- using vi and nroff (or fmt for simple
tasks). ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
"So, Intel's lawyers bid the SCO litigation a fond farewell,
after squishing SCO's subpoena like a bug.",
Heh...
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. I wonder how many
times SCOX flipflops back and forth, and wonder even more if it makes them
dizzy. Or gives them a headache. -jb [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Squish?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 14 2006 @ 12:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
Good to see Judge Wells cracking the whip. In our part of the world lawyers
insist on all possible holidays, and we're possibly less of a christian nation
than
U.S.A.
peterk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 13 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
"... the tacks Novell has just thrown on SCO's path..."
These look a lot more like Caltrops to me.
(For those who don't know,and to save looking it up, Caltrops are four spikes
arranged in a tetrahedron - whichever way they fall there is a spike facing up.
They were the anti-cavalry weapon of choice in the middle ages.
Alan-the Prof @ work[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
