Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

"Show Us the Code" Breaks Its Silence

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jul 02, 2007 09:31 PM
from the getting-out-of-the-kitchen dept.
DigDuality writes with an explanation of the silence of the Show Us the Code initiative. The push he began — to gather influential sponsors demanding that Steve Ballmer reveal what Linux code he believed to be infringing Microsoft patents — was discussed here last February. "Show Us the Code has been silent since March 23. May came and went — the deadline allotted for calling Ballmer's bluff — but the site gave no update. I now explain the silence. After a scheduled interview with Forbes columnist Dan Lyons didn't happen, and my place of employment falsely accused me of representing that they endorsed my own political goals, I decided it was best to shut my mouth so I would be able to keep paying my bills. I'm glad to see Linus now publicly echoing the sentiments that this site espoused. Maybe someone already accustomed to the limelight will have better luck in challenging Microsoft's FUD machine."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code 462 comments
DigDuality writes "A new campaign, Showusthecode.com, requests every leader in the Linux world, and companies invested in Linux, to stand up and demand that Steve Ballmer show the world where Linux violates Microsoft's intellectual property. He has been making these claims since the Novell-Microsoft deal. If Microsoft answers this challenge — by May 1st — then Linux developers will be able to modify the code so that it remains 'free' software. If such infringing code doesn't exist, we will have called Microsoft's bluff. And if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for the admission that it is."
This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It's not in their interest to admit anything, that would bing their very successful run of bullshit to an end requiring them to think up new bullshit
  • my place of employment falsely accused me of representing that they endorsed my own political goals, I decided it was best to shut my mouth so I would be able to keep paying my bills
    If that could've been properly documented I think there is federal protection for termination threats based upon political affiliation.

    In the real world, though, that sort of thing is nearly impossible to document fully and, even if it is well documented, one must still retain the services of an attorney ($$$) willing to stake their reputation against what could be a multimillion dollar company, and their respective insurers and financiers, with more than enough legal backing of their own.

    Not that I would know anything about how that sort of situation plays out. It would most certainly be indicative of an "OMG teh evil conspiracy!" if I were to suggest that I've been on the worse end of a similar situation.

    All that said: sell-out. =P~~~~
    • Not that I would know anything about how that sort of situation plays out. It would most certainly be indicative of an "OMG teh evil conspiracy!" if I were to suggest that I've been on the worse end of a similar situation.
      Sounds like somebody doesn't love our worshipful Great Profit, Bonuses and Dividends Be Upon Him. Why do you hate capitalism and America? Why do you hurt your parents so?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      If that could've been properly documented I think there is federal protection for termination threats based upon political affiliation.

      If they were threatening him for that, sure. But that's not what the article said.

      falsely accused me of representing that they endorsed my own political goals

      The company was upset because, in their eyes, he used their name in a way that made it look like they supported him. They just threatened him with termination over misuse of the company name. The problem is, even

    • IANAL, there is no protection for political affliation, its not part of the Equal opportunity protection(race,gender,sex, national origin).
    • by DigDuality (918867) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:23PM (#19726523)
      This reply just isn't to you. It's to many in this threaded discussion. Yes i was stupid for using company machines. That i know. I knew it then. I still don't have proof of them knowing this way. I don't know one way or the other. But you have to consider, i was one man handling an irc chatroom, revamping a website that blew up far faster than expected, maintaining a blog, i have a romantic life that's important to me, chores to do, errands to run. I used up every second of every day, and losing sleep answering the 1000s of e-mails and attempting to contact many people who may help the cause. It was stupid, but there simply wasn't enough time in the day. I'm not saying i didn't have a choice, i did. I made a bad one.

      As for those that'll accuse me of advertising and attempting to get attention. Find me one advertisement on that site. That site cost me money and i didn't advertise a damned thing.
       
      As to my job versus what I enjoy software wise, lets get real here. This is the real world. I'm not 30. I don't write for the linux kernel. I'm not management. I'm also not a kid. I have real world bills, i live in an area where finding a job in open source is next to impossible and i go where the money goes. If i happen across a position that aligns with my passions (which i actively strive for) then all the better. But until then there's rent and car payment and electric bills, and insurance, and gas and pets to feed and a relationship i value. I put things in perspective and i'm not such a strong idealist that i'm going to destroy me life. I'm not a member of PETA and i have a bit of common sense in this regard.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      If that could've been properly documented I think there is federal protection for termination threats based upon political affiliation.

      I think that this would not be viewed by the courts as a firing for political reasons, since "Microsoft needs to explain what patents Linux infringes upon" is not a political goal.

      Instead, here's what I (as someone who spent a semester researching employee firings) think about this:
      There is a common law tradition of allowing an employer to fire an employee for

      1. a good reason
  • This type of behavior is very typical in the business world. If someone says 'prove it' to a company, that someone usually gets some celebrity status, but also they run the risk of being crushed under the company's legal department. It's a shame this guy had to get flack in his job, even though it was 'professionally' handled. They should have read up first, and then seen how to deal with the situation, but as time == money, they couldn't be arsed.
    How has this influenced MS and more importantly Ballmer
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      ...that someone usually gets some celebrity status, but also they run the risk of being crushed under the company's legal department.

      This guy seems to have been crushed under the weight of being a marginal Linux celebrity. It gives you some sympathy for Paris Hilton the way he's flipping out after 248 Slashdot comments and a Forbes reporter not following through with an interview.

  • by chubs730 (1095151) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:49PM (#19725741)
    I'm sure he'll show you a chair or two
  • ...is that there wasn't a general claim "that we believe one or more patents may have been infringed upon" but rather a very specific claim that they know some 200 specific patents were violated.

    If they know exactly how many were allegedly violated, then they have already done their research.

    Here is the funny thing. If M$ released that list, immediately people would score the code of the Linux/GNU system to verify the claims. In the possibility that M$ has a legitimate claim, people would write new workaround-code and destroy M$'s case. If the claims are shown to be less than legitimate, it detroys M$'s case.

    M$ has nothing to gain by releasing this information, and everything to lose. This is a huge scare tactic, that may work to scare large businesses away from considering what may turn out to be illegal software. And why migrate if you may be forced to migrate back?

    This is a rotten tactic, but a very effective and insidious one. Luckily, I don't think this will destroy Linux, as Linus pointed out, many of the basic patents of a GUI that M$ may be referring to are likely pretty much public domain at this point. If anything, there is prior art from vast numbers of previous GUIs that M$ copied, so it is absurd to think they invented everything, let alone own exclusive rights to it.

    When companies like Novell were first approached by M$, they should have gone to the Linux Foundation, or EFF. Instead they took a payday that inherently casts a doubt of suspision upon the entire Linux community. And while I was a fan of SuSe and many of the things they did, I will never again advocate the use of any Novell products, nor any major distro/vendor that strikes such a deal.
    • Re:What gets me.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Surt (22457) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:04PM (#19725881) Homepage Journal
      Rewriting the code is great for future infringement, but does nothing to protect everyone currently using linux from their past infringements, not to mention everyone who has shipped non upgradeable hardware running a fixed version of linux or uclinux.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        You are correct. In that regard, companies like Novell could be hit financially in a suit if it was shown they sold a product that infringed upon patents. Meanwhile, the Linux Foundation turns back to the EU who demanded MS open up their products and libraries more for interoperability with other OS'es. Linux has a stronger hold in the EU, and the EU has already proven they will rule against MS. Does MS really want to open that legal battle again?

        Again, given the possibility of legal repercussions that
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      M$ has nothing to gain by releasing this information, and everything to lose.

      I beg to differ:

      They have EVERYTHING to gain - open source coders will alter their code so that it no longer violates MS patents.

      They have NOTHING to lose - releasing a list won't cost them anything - presumably they already HAVE it.

      Oh oh I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN - you mean they will lose potential "damages" from a "lawsuit"? Right I forgot for a second, it's about MONEY
      • "Right I forgot for a second, it's about MONEY - no one CARES about the patent really - it's just a means to an end, right?"

        Patents have always been about money. What did you think they were for - bragging rights?
    • Re:What gets me.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:22PM (#19726045) Homepage
      It's probably the same ones that RMS says Linux violates: [fsfeurope.org]

      Two years ago, a thorough study found that the kernel Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the US. Of course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher.
      • Re:What gets me.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mibus (26291) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:21PM (#19726515) Homepage

        Selective enforcement is perfectly possible when it comes to patents - they aren't "use it or lose it" in the way that trademarks are. However, if you are aware that somebody is infringing on your patent, and you do not take reasonable steps (either to collect royalties, or to stop the infringement), a subsequent lawsuit against that particular party will be prejudiced as a result.


        I can imagine it now...

        MSFT Lawyer: We have this list of patents you're violating. All your base are belong to us...
        Linus: I asked for the list when you made it five years ago. You wouldn't give it to me. How am I supposed to proceed?
        Judge: MSFT, F*ck off.
  • Voting Machines? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by binaryspiral (784263) on Monday July 02 2007, @09:56PM (#19725801)
    I wish the same amount of pressure was behind the US Electronic Voting machine systems to open their code.

    Until then, what's the point of holding elections?
  • Enough said. The world will be a better place when they are gone.
  • [blockquote]They were professional and courteous and reassured they would not attempt to violate my freedom of speech. But the underlying message was clear even if it was never stated explicitly and I was not in a position to start bucking my place of employment over a political cause.[/blockquote]

    I sympathize with the guy, I really do, but in no way, shape, or form, was his freedom of speech violated, nor could they have violated even if they wanted to, even if they threatened (and followed through) with f
    • I don't see why you're so "up in arms" over his (IMHO quite valid) point about "freedom of speech"??

      Sure, they're not blocking him from speaking out in a strict sense, but he explains pretty clearly why they're making it highly impractical to continue.

      At the end of the day, are we content to define "free speech" as simply "You won't get thrown in prison or killed over saying this!", or do we want to strive for truly being able to speak out without harassment, loss of employment, or other repercussions?

      I thi
    • It's pathetic. He admits he freely stopped the site himself, he admits he obtained little or no support, he admits he received little direct media contact regarding the issue and then tries to make out there was some nebulous conspiracy to silence him which he was unable to fight. Personally I felt he was extremely lucky not to have been fired for using his employers computers for uploading to the site during work hours.
    • This might be a good thing to ask Mr. Beckerman if he's around.

      In my one business law class, I seem to recall a series of cases describing something called a "De Minimis Fringe", whereupon an exployee uses a company resource, but the pure cost of that usage is so small that it results in laughable fianncial effect.
      "Ten Minutes of time plus whatever CPU power plus electricity" is right in that category. (Some of the original cases dealt with machines like copiers & faxes.)

      Everyone take a crisp look at yo
  • Thanks for that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Satanboy (253169) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:22PM (#19726043)
    Thank you for putting up an explanation on what happened.
    Thank you for trying to help the community.
    Thank you for putting your ass on the line and going as far as you could before you were silenced.

    I'm sorry you were put in such a position.
    Keep up the good work, and keep your chin up.

    It was brave to explain what happened, and it was the right choice you made.
    The open source community is important, but keeping a roof over your head should always be your top priority.
  • But it has to be FUD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bellum Aeternus (891584) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:26PM (#19726071)
    If we knew what the patents were it wouldn't be FUD, it'd just be something to work around. Fear is power, remember that.
  • Dan Lyons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:45PM (#19726229)

    After a scheduled interview with Forbes columnist Dan Lyons didn't happen,
    That's probably the best endorsement Show Me the Code could get - if Dan Lyons - notorious anti-Free Software disinformation specialist - can't figure out a way to spin the situation to make MS look good and Linux developers look like a bunch of hippie commies criminals, then no one can.
    • Dan Lyons - notorious anti-Free Software disinformation specialist

      I would not say that's a fair description. His most famous article is the prescient 1999 Red Hat [forbes.com] article in which he states that Red Hat is a great business venture and M$ is on the slow, declining power curve.

      Forbes is a great magazine and usually tends to think outside the box about things. That's not always good, but in this case, it certainly was. 1999 was not the smartest year to call M$ a loser.

  • by RoadWarriorX (522317) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:59PM (#19726335) Homepage
    I have a hard time finding any references to this guy's employer anywhere in his blog. So, what asshat translated the mere existence of this blog into "representing the company"? With respect to his need to pay the bills and all, maybe he should have stood up for himself.
  • Who snitched (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wrook (134116) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:05PM (#19726389) Homepage
    TFA makes reference to the possibility that a certain author may have tipped off his company that he was hosting an "anti-Microsoft" website. I think this is unlikely. As he mentions himself, his website garnered a lot of attention not least of all on Slashdot. I think it is much more likely that Microsoft themselves contacted his employer. They must have known what was going on and this would be a relatively simple way to shut down the site. As his employer was a Microsoft partner, the result was predictable.

    Which leads me to some advice. Aligning your profession with personal ideals is generally a good idea. But if you are planning on being any kind of activist at all, it's imperative. You can pretend all you want that it shouldn't matter what you do in your spare time. But when push comes to shove, your livelihood is a powerful piece of leverage in a political spat.

    After 20 years in the proprietary software industry I'm finally waking up and smelling the coffee. As of Friday I'm retiring and going to work on something unrelated to computers. This will leave me unfettered to do the things I believe in in my spare time. It's funny, I've always valued freedom, but I've spent the majority of my career voluntarily chained to something I fundamentally disagree with. Life is strange...
    • TFA makes reference to the possibility that a certain author may have tipped off his company that he was hosting an "anti-Microsoft" website. I think this is unlikely. As he mentions himself, his website garnered a lot of attention not least of all on Slashdot. I think it is much more likely that Microsoft themselves contacted his employer. They must have known what was going on and this would be a relatively simple way to shut down the site. As his employer was a Microsoft partner, the result was predictab

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2007, @11:35PM (#19726605)
    I work for a Microsoft partner, and I own and use a Macbook Pro - at work. I bought it because the company refused to replace my (very under-spec) company laptop when it died, and I wanted to run Unix, OS X, and Windows on the same machine at the same time. (Think universal debugging - I can use any browser on any platform simultaneously.) I took the machine to the IT head to have him clear it into the office, and he they expressed some concern over the non-removable camera, he and his manager came to the conclusion that it and I presented a very low leak risk. (I have worked for the company for almost a decade.)
    The next day I was called into a surprise meeting with the CIO and the head of sales, and I was told to bring the Mac with me. We had a discussion revolving around my "unfortunate" choice of vendor. Someone had mentioned the machine to someone who told someone and so on until somehow our contact at Microsoft was involved. By the time it got to MS they were told the company had bought the machine for me, and several other employees, and wanted to buy an unspecified "apple server". Understandably he was concerned. He called our sales head and asked that the "situation" be "taken care of".

    We determined that nothing of the sort had happened, that I had paid for the machine with my own money, that I was taking it with me at such time that my employment ended. All well and good. Then a few more conditions on my use of the machine came up:

    1) I am to call it a laptop or PC. I cannot use the words "Apple", "Mac", or "Macintosh", not even with other employees.
    2) When entering or leaving the building, or where customers might see it, I am to hold the logo side of the case against me so the logo cannot be seen.
    3) If our area is being exhibited to customers/press or pictures are being taken, the computer is not allowed on the premises.
    4) When on company property I must be running Windows. I cannot boot OS X unless absolutely necessary. (A fullscreen Parallels session, however, was deemed acceptable.) The OS X interface cannot be displayed.
    5) When I leave the company, I have to submit the entire computer to a third-party security consultant who will check the machine to ensure I am not leaving with any company intellectual property. I must reimburse the company for the costs involved in this.

    The company was TERRIFIED that Microsoft might somehow take some offense to ONE EMPLOYEE out of hundreds having a competing product, and was scared to the extent of considering disciplinary action against a senior employee.

    THAT is power, kids.
    • by Grail (18233) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:31AM (#19727305) Journal

      5) When I leave the company, I have to submit the entire computer to a third-party security consultant who will check the machine to ensure I am not leaving with any company intellectual property. I must reimburse the company for the costs involved in this.

      ROFLMAO!

      Do they ask you to submit the computer to a third party security consultant every day you leave the office? Or just that last time when you've already sanitised the machine by loading Mac OS X onto it fresh? And conveniently hidden your 2GB thumb drive with the Death Star plans in the crevice of some robot's carapace?

      You will, of course, be taking steps to blatantly and flagrantly violate these stupid rules, won't you? If it was a company laptop they wouldn't have all these nasty Microsoft bogeymen terrifying them in their sleep...

    • There's no way in hell any employer could make me use my own computer to do work on. No way.

      I can't believe this situation even arose.
  • by jomama717 (779243) * <jomama717@gmail.com> on Monday July 02 2007, @11:40PM (#19726639) Journal
    Slashdotters on Mardi Gras?
  • T-Shirts? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mgiuca (1040724) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:28AM (#19726919)
    You must be having some effect. I saw on the Australian satirical show The Chaser's War on Everything, they went around making fun of people's "joke T-shirts".

    One fellow they interviewed had a shirt which read, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."

    They didn't get it. :p
  • I can understand the concern for keeping one's job. But there are 1,489 people who have publicly challenged Microsoft to sue them based on Microsoft's questionable Microsoft patent claims:

    http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?titl e=SMFM_list_page_12 [digitaltippingpoint.com]

    Included on that list is none other than Eric S. Raymond, who has this to say:

    130. Eric S. Raymond. Yes, Microsoft, the guy who's been harshing your mellow since I wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar in 1997. Linux user since 1993, so I've been violating your nonexistent patents for fourteen years. Sue me first. Please, oh please! Because I don't think I've kicked your sorry asses enough yet, and I'd love another round with you chumps.
    And this from someone who is supplying the Aussie Defence Forces with "patent infringing" software:

    Steve O'Connor (Adelaide, Australia) BAD ME - I am using a pirated copy of Gentoo Linux that I illegally downloaded off the internet, and have installed on a whole rack of servers that I use to make money by providing information services to the Australian Defence Forces. I skipped out on paying any licence fees by doing it this way, and I have (illegal ?) access to all the source code, so I can hack my application around however I see fit. I have also ripped off a copy of PCLinuxOS from the internet (Which is like a HaXoRed version of Vista), without giving out my credit card, and used that same single copy to install on dozens of other computers. The recipients of these PCLinuxOS machines are way happy too ...
    • Because, that sounds like a methodical way for an institution to restrict any citizen's rights.
      No way! That would be a crackpot conspiracy theory! Haven't you been reading the ACs who have been griefing me relentlessly for the last six months?
    • Re:Failure Point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:35PM (#19726601)
      The loss of free speech is not acceptable just because he took a break and used his work computer to upload something to the internet. There has to be a balance and if lawyers can weasel out of denying free speech based on a one time use of a computer for 20 minutes, then the system is utterly broken and should be bulldozed over.
    • Re:Failure Point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gujo-odori (473191) on Monday July 02 2007, @11:59PM (#19726757)

      You must be a student.

      No, you might not have been in a position to start 'bucking your employment over a political cause' but it sure sounds like you were a victim of political oppression

      I'm as anti-Microsoft as anybody (well, as most people). However, being anti-Microsoft is not a political affiliation. For some, it's personal. For some, it's business. For some, it's religious. For some, it's >= 2 of those. Some people are so pro-Microsoft they bleed blue when they cut themselves. But no matter where you fall on that spectrum, Microsoft is not a political party. It's a company. A big, anti-competitive company with a big patent portfolio, but a company nonetheless (the market leader with a big patent portfolio is always anti-competitive, though; some people here are doubtless familiar with the refrain "I BM, You BM, we all BM for IBM" and the word to the wise that "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." When IBM was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the computer business, they were at least as anti-competitive as Microsoft, and they invented FUD).

      Now, if he were put under pressure for being a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist, Nazi, or whatever, that would be political, and he might have a case (IANAL). However, the situation was that his employer was a direct partner of Microsoft and they felt that his running an anti-MS site cast them in a bad light with Microsoft. Did MS put pressure on them, that his site was problematic and it could have financial repercussions if he kept at it? We'll never know, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Does that suck? Yes. Is it fair? Maybe. Maybe not. If we look at things from management's point of view, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make money, and are answerable to the board if they fail. If an employee's anti-MS site is going to make them fail to make money, or at least as much money, they are going to request that he make a choice between running the site or working there. They pretty much have to.

      Now, I could probably run an anti-MS site and even if my employer were to become aware of it, I doubt that would be a problem. However, you never know how a site might snowball out of control and become a lightning rod, or where you might want to work in the future where it might be an issue. I have a family to support, and my obligation to my wife and kids outweighs any obligation that I may or may not have (just for the record, I have none), to publicly oppose Microsoft. But, I do other things. I have a Mac. I have an iPod, not a Zune. I run Linux and FreeBSD on several machines. My kids' computers are Linux boxes. I work for a Microsoft competitor. I subscribe to a couple of Linux magazines. If people ask me for computer advice, I steer them toward Mac or Linux, whichever I think might be best for them. And not just to be anti-MS, but because I consider the Mac platform to be better than Windows at pretty much everything, and the better Linux distros to be better than Windows at most things (and gaining ground all the time; it took about five years to grind out Vista; if they take five years to grind out the successor to Vista, will anyone still want it? Apple on one side and Linux on the other will eat their desktop lunch in those five years.

      So, I think you should cut the showusthecode.com guy some slack. You're not walking in his shoes and don't have his obligations. Or if you do have his obligations and would put hatred of Microsoft ahead of your family, I think now would be a good time to reassess your priorities. He did what he could, which was to call attention to the issue, and later he voted with his feet and left that employer. If he's still not in a position to run that site and others have to pick up the torch now, I have nothing to criticize him for. He's done more than me, and I'd be very, very surprised if he hasn't done more than you. You sound like you're nothing but a mouth, without even the guts to post logged in.

      • Re:Failure Point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mgiuca (1040724) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:25AM (#19726905)
        I think it becomes political when said company has enough power to influence governments, laws, international markets, and the majority of the developed world's population.
    • Re:Pussy.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gweihir (88907) on Monday July 02 2007, @10:10PM (#19725949)
      This guy has no credibility whatsover. He goes out and blows out a big stink, doesn't get his advertising hits, and then blames it all on the mysterious and evil forces of dark capitalism in order to cover his ass.

      Seems to me you are a fully qualified cretin. MS shill?

      The site does not have any advertisements. He did get his hits.
    • Were I to rewrite parent in a less flamebaitish manner, I would say that it is difficult to feel sorry for a guy who 1) Works for a company that is a direct partner with MS 2) Publicly criticises MS, and 3) Is surprised when his employer is unhappy with his actions.
      Now his employer's behavior may not be fair or right or legal, but it most certainly can be expected.
      It is particularly disappointing because I, like the majority on this forum, agree with his goals. I'd like to take him seriously and support
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's the same with all the other open source shit. Kids with an itch to scratch and an ego to stroke just wank their keyboards in a pathetic attempt to save the world.

            How many web servers use linux "open source shit"?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Here's a challenge for all Americans.

      Compose a paragraph, consisting of two or more sentences which does not contain an obscure (or any) television reference, or a "catch phrase" of any sort.