|
Hearing Time Change |
|
Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:18 AM EST
|
For those planning to attend today's summary judgment hearing in The SCO Group v IBM, the hearing time has been changed to 2:30 PM Utah time (previously it was 3:00). Here's the PACER notification of the amended hearing time. (Note that some of the dates are listed as 2009, these are typos in the docket listing.)
On another notice, we suffered another downtime (RAID controller on the database machine) Many thanks to the Ibiblio techs who worked the night to get the site up and running again!
Docket no. 970:
AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 782 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, 776 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, 777 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counterclaims, 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim, 784 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, 953 Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File SCO's Over Length Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 29, 2009Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File SCO's Over Length Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 29, 2009, [894] SEALED MOTION, 783 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims, 785 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, 913 MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION : Motion Hearing reset for 3/1/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Please note time change from 3:00 PM to 2:30 PM.(kmj) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:48 AM EST |
Off topic here - please make links "clicky"!
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lots of motions under consideration - how can all that be handled in one hearing? - Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:52 AM EST
- Prime Minister's Office Responds to Petition - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:10 AM EST
- Microsoft Windows ousted at California school district - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:55 AM EST
- Linux Software Raid works well! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:58 AM EST
- When is the time limit for subpeonas in SCO vs Novell? - Authored by: kh on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 06:32 AM EST
- European Commission warn Microsoft, four weeks to explain - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 06:56 AM EST
- Trolls are AWOL (MIA?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:56 AM EST
- OT here - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 09:51 AM EST
- Thaks To MathFox - Authored by: llanitedave on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:29 AM EST
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:49 AM EST |
Any corrections needed - post here.
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:02 AM EST
|
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:47 AM EST |
It seems strange to me that people should built RAID systems with a controller
as a single point of failure.
I know it is possible to build a RAID with two separate computers and the data
mirrored on both of them.
What I was wondering is, is there a way, using Linux and available FOSS, to
build a RAID 5 system using three separate computers? The idea is to connect
each machine to both the others with a suitably fast Ethernet connection so that
there is no common point of failure.
Such a system has some additional security advantages: separate backups could be
made of each machine and stored in separate locations, the data could be
restored from any two backup files; likewise, it is impossible for anyone
acquiring a single backup file to extract any confidential data.
Has this ever been done? Or considered and rejected? Am I as crazy as my
children think that I am?
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:55 AM EST
- link - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:58 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 06:26 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 07:19 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 09:59 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:00 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: kenryan on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:58 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST
- RAID - Authored by: kenryan on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:23 PM EST
- RAID - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:45 PM EST
- I hear you ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 03:15 PM EST
- sw RAID -> also see Sun ZFS - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:40 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:30 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: philc on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:34 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:51 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:02 AM EST
- RAID - GFS, OCFS2, GPFS, Lustre - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:58 AM EST
- RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 12:29 PM EST
- Looks like a bugspray commercial. - Authored by: RLP on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 07:36 AM EST |
There's a post over on the Yahoo SCOX boards about SCO Unixware, guy there says
it looks pretty awful and uses out of date software from a bankrupt company.
I've never used it myself so can't comment. The interesting thing is that it
has a copyright IBM notice in the OS.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&a
mp;bn=2942&tid=412691&mid=412691&tof=8&frt=2
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:01 AM EST |
I hate to break form and actually comment on the article, but is there anyone
that's going to attend the hearing? What's the likelihood that we'll get some
near-realtime feedback on the hearing as in the past? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 12:09 PM EST |
My understanding is that, as this is a hearing, the Judge won't be issuing any
judgements today, but rather questioning the lawyers for clarification on the
motions they filed for/against SJ?
But, these hearings can also often give you an idea which way a judge is
leaning, based on the questions he poses to one side or the other, correct?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|