Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 4 +-   SCO's Darl McBride Lies Under Oath-> on Thursday May 01 2008, @10:34AM eldavojohn

Submitted by eldavojohn on Thursday May 01 2008, @10:34AM
court
eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the recent Novell Vs SCO case we've been following. Our good friend Darl McBride made some interesting comments in court yesterday. He stated (under oath): "many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers ... We have evidence System V is in Linux ... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]." This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day. Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!"
Link to Original Source
submission
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

SCO's Darl McBride Lies Under Oath 4 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So there are SCO memos that essentially state that they did not find UNIX code in Linux. Sontag has said he has not seen UNIX code in Linux. "There very well could be, [...] I've never done that analysis, never seen that analysis."

    Darl *still* says there is UNIX code in Linux. Linux programmers have said "show us the code" and SCO has refused to do so except under NDA.

    And yet Sontag has also said: "I haven't seen anyone in the Linux community racing to remove these million lines of code from Linux yet

  • It is possible to say something untrue without lying, you just have to not know what you don't know.
    • And Darl was dumb enough that he believed his own propaganda.
    • So what you're saying is that there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. And by having unknown unknowns, you lack responsibility for what you didn't know you didn't know. Because you didn't know it, did you? So how could you be responsible? If only we could apply this logic elsewhere... somehow!
Search
Oh, that sound of male ego. You travel halfway across the galaxy and it's still the same song. -- Eve McHuron, "Mudd's Women", stardate 1330.1

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.