Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News

Live Blogs From the Hans Reiser Trial 300

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can't-help-but-pay-attention dept.
whoever57 writes "The Hans Reiser trial has been underway for some time now, the prosecution is moving towards the end of its case. For those interested, not only in the outcome of the trial, but a detailed description of the trial, including some insights into police methods, two reporters are live-blogging. One report is by Henry K. Lee for the San Francisco Chronicle and the other is by David Kravets and published by Wired"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Live Blogs From the Hans Reiser Trial

Comments Filter:
  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:25AM (#22378784)
    If the tree doesn't balance then you must acquit!
    • Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cloricus (691063) on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:32AM (#22378862)
      This case sickens me. Even if he did do it they appear to have no evidence at all, and it really does scare me that they can potentially take away your freedoms with conjecture.

      After seeing several law cases through, some famous and some not, for personal interest, my faith in the legal system 'getting the right guy' is almost null. I often wonder how they get any one at all...
      • Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:38AM (#22378942) Homepage
        It has always been this way.

        the worst part, have you ever sat on a jury? I have been in 2 and some people's "justifications" are insane. One trial 2 women were willing to send the guy down the river 30 secodns after we got in the room, they based it on what the DA said that the judge told them to strike from the record. It was pure fantasy on the DA's part and we were instructed to not consider it.

        Their reason, " Oh the judge did not mean that when he said it. Plus he looks guilty."

        we spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think. And this is the norm in Jury duty. Lots of really dense dits sit on those jurys. Many only listen to every other word or ignore everything from one lawyer because they dont like him.

        Frightening.
        • Re:Linux defence (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:49AM (#22379046)
          This is why if I am ever accused of a serious crime, I would seriously consider a bench trial [wikipedia.org].
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Yvanhoe (564877)
            I think you would be afraid to have a diner with ten judges, in private.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by thelexx (237096)
              "Du Bois made a reference to the expected testimony of Nina Reiser's mother, Irina Sharanova. Hora said something to the judge, and Du Bois didn't hear it because his client was speaking to him. Du Bois asked for what Hora said to be repeated, and the judge, smiling, said he wouldn't allow that to be done, as is usually the case, because the jury isn't here now. "Too bad," the judge said with a smile."

              You're right, I'd end up sticking one of them in the eye with a fork and get locked up myself.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by anagama (611277)
                If you've been reading along from day 1, you'll note that Reiser was continuously interrupting his attorney and DuBois was constantly asking to have things read back. The judge told Reiser to knock it off a bunch of times, and finally said "that's it". That's why the record wasn't read back, bad behavior on Reiser's part. Reiser doesn't like his attorney either.

                Anyway, since /. is now going to ruin my user-experience at that blog anyway, I'd suggest starting at day one and reading forward -- you'll h
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jonbryce (703250)
            In England, Magistrates sitting alone find around 90% of defendants guilty, whereas juries find about 60% of defendants guilty. So you are better getting a jury trial if you can.
        • Re:Linux defence (Score:4, Informative)

          by coolGuyZak (844482) on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:57AM (#22379140)
          When I sat on a jury, I wasn't impressed by the mentality of my fellow jurors. Most of them wanted the trial over and done with, so they could get back to their lives/jobs/whatever. It doesn't help that the case was monumentally stupid. The defendant was a well-intentioned idiot, and the plaintiff was a poor middle-aged woman with a greasy, ambulance chaser of an attorney. On occasion, I wish that I wasn't as critical as I am. As we discussed the case, I flipped between issues, making me appear more whimsical than thoughtful. Next time, I think I'll make a run at leading the group, so I can set an appropriate atmosphere for deliberation.
          • by gfxguy (98788)
            The last jury I sat on backlashed against the ambulance chaser. I had mixed feelings at the end, after all there was SOME damages, but we did award SOME damages, just what was due... unfortunately, when the lawyer sucks out his chunk, that left the plaintiff with some money, but not enough, and a lot of wasted time...

            On the other hand, he could have settled a lot earlier and not wasted everybody else's time and ended up with more in his pocket. As usual, the only one who actually made out was the law talk
          • I was on a jury before, and I was actually impressed by my fellow jurors. They weren't rocket scientists; their vocabularies were limited (note to trial lawyers: use simple words), and they didn't want to be there, but they TRIED their best to reach the best/fairest result. No one was trying to screw the guy or to screw the MAN. The jury actually tried to figure out what was going on and what the correct verdict should be.
            • Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Shakrai (717556) * on Monday February 11, 2008 @03:27PM (#22382194) Journal

              I was on a jury before, and I was actually impressed by my fellow jurors.

              I'll go one better. I've been judged by a jury of my peers.

              Couple years ago I found myself accused of a felony crime that I didn't commit. I wound up testifying at Grand Jury and they eventually decided not to indict me. When I stood before them the DA asked me a series of questions. Afterwards the Grand Jurors themselves got to question me.

              The crime in question was a computer crime. The Grand Jurors actually asked intelligent and thoughtful questions. Most of them didn't understand the underlying issues of the case or the evidence that had been presented -- but they went out of their way to find out when they questioned me and for that I am thankful. It would have been ten times easier for them to just issue a rubber stamp for the DA and go home.

              I'm sorry, but all the people around here advocating that we get rid of juries are really missing the point. Go study the history of how the common law came about. Read the Magna Carta. Read our constitution. Study our legal traditions. The State shouldn't get to take away your liberty if it can't convince your fellow citizens of the need to do so. The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Atario (673917)

                The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.
                As should the erosion of the public education system. That's something that undermines jury trials (by making juries dumber) as it does all other areas of a society.
        • Jurisprudence (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mcrbids (148650) on Monday February 11, 2008 @11:20AM (#22379362) Journal
          the worst part, have you ever sat on a jury? I have been in 2 and some people's "justifications" are insane. One trial 2 women were willing to send the guy down the river 30 secodns after we got in the room, they based it on what the DA said that the judge told them to strike from the record. It was pure fantasy on the DA's part and we were instructed to not consider it.

          People are people. They are this way today, were this way 10 years ago, they were this way 200 years ago. That's why we have a jury system so rigged such that a *single* person can hang the jury and let the defendant go.

          we spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think. And this is the norm in Jury duty.

          See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

          Welcome to jurisprudence! BTW: my heart-felt thanks for serving on jury duty!
          • by nomadic (141991)
            See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

            13, actually, since a judge can (and often will) reverse a guilty verdict if he or she thinks the prosecutor hasn't made their case.
          • by Deagol (323173)
            See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

            But it's not a truly random selection of peers. That's a fatal flaw right there. The jury selection process itself is a pitiful glimpse at how the system works. At my selection, there was a pool of possible jurors -- 12 initially selected to sit, and another 12 s

            • That's the same with me right now.

              I'm from a rural county in Indiana, and I was recently chosen for the second quarter of this year for the jury pool.

              I await to see if there's any crimes that aren't settled before court takes place. After reading here, I can't say that I expect to much. However, what does give me hope is that our county is extremely political, in that they do seem to read a lot of happenings in our county government. The weekly paper and its 2 pages of opinions from readers shows that to be
        • "Jury of your peers" (Score:3, Interesting)

          by CarpetShark (865376)
          Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING. Guilty, innocent, or entirely unaware of what I was being accused of, I'd probably still push the wrong buttons on the jury, just be being a geek.

          One thing I find interesting though, is the legal systems assertion that you're entitled to a "jury of your peers". What exactly do they mean by that, I wonder? Can you say you consider your peers to be other geeks? People of the same non-judgemental religion? Literally, peers on your P2P network? Other pimp
          • > Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING

            What he said!

            I was in a civil case, I was accused of something extremely vague. It took nearly $20,000 of attorneys fees just to nail her down to something I could actually start defending against. In the end, it was just a sham, to try to get money from me (since I was her ex-husbands friend), and since she had nothing and I was running out, settlement was the only option.

            Sort of an official version of:
            "Give me $10k"
            "No"
            "OK, I'll
          • by Sique (173459)
            In the Magna Carta (where the wording comes from) it meant "people of the same rank".
        • "We spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think."

          Most people are not consistently able to be logical. Even judges often give me the impression that they are lucky not to be programmers. They are sometimes so unable to be logical that they would not be able to debug their programs.

          States often hold cases in local city neighborhoods so that it can be comfortable for people to observe. For example, I watched a state supreme court case in an auditorium at a
          • Maybe no one should be allowed to be a lawyer except if he or she wrote a complicated program and debugged it.

            Lawyers are trained in logic, but they use words rather than mathematical constructs. Judges are not trained to rely purely on logic, and they bring in their experiences and personal preferences. It is impossible, and likely not desirable, to have a legal system that is run by humans attempting to engage in robot logic exercises. The worst excesses of the law are as likely to be from logic divor

        • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
          I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.
          • I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.

            Frankly, if you're too stupid to understand that serving on a jury is an obligation of your citizenship in our society then I wonder just what you think you deserve.
        • I was on the jury for two trials back in England about 25 years ago. I was impressed by the seriousness and clarity of thought all the jurors brought to the cases. Maybe times have changed or the US is different or just that both of have only anecdotal examples, however I went away impressed by the jury system.

          Here in Canada now they are slowly trying to work towards the abolition of the jury system by stealth and a thousand cuts. They are making less and less cases triable by jury and the percentage of

      • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:59AM (#22379162) Homepage Journal
        1. have no justice system at all
        2. have a human system of justice

        which means you have all manner of abuses and failures and stupidity at every step of the system

        those are your choices. 1 or 2. there is no

        3. have a perfect infallible system of justice

        sorry, never will be

        to have this sort of disdain for the entire justice system because it has human flaws doesn't make you wise, it makes you naive

        of course things can be improved, and that is where our disappointment in the system should be channeled. but this is not the vibe i get from some people. some people i get this vibe that they hate the idea of police and courts, rather than they'd like to improve them. which is an attitude which is bizarre and ignorant
        • by esocid (946821)

          to have this sort of disdain for the entire justice system because it has human flaws doesn't make you wise, it makes you naive

          while that may be true, having a distrust or skepticism I think is wise, rather then the naievity that some people trust it as 100% infallible. Some of these comments have made me think of 12 Angry Men [imdb.com], which in short is about a murder trial where a majority of the jurors decide that the defendant is guilty, and the minority (who think he is innocent) keep going over the facts that

          • i was complaining about the morons who have 0% faith in the system

            you are complaining about the morons who have 100% faith in the system

            both extremes, of course, are moronic

            the true attitude we should all have is found somewhere in the middle

            the justice system, like most human endeavours, is severely compromised and insufficient and error-prone and manipulated

            and yet, life without it is even worse
          • There weren't any facts that pointed to the defendant's innocence; juror 10 kept pointing out weaknesses with the evidence.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by prelelat (201821)
        What really bugs me about a case like this were there is no evidence is what if he is not convicted, there is no evidence. If they do find a body and evidence that points the finger straight at him hes already been let off, can they even have a new trial? I agree it seems pretty stupid to have a trial with no evidence for more reasons than I can think of.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by AKAImBatman (238306)

          If they do find a body and evidence that points the finger straight at him hes already been let off, can they even have a new trial?

          No. Double jeopardy is not allowed in the US legal system. They could raise new charges if applicable to the incident (e.g. breaking and entering), but they could not retry him for the same crime.

          That's why it's always in the best interest of the prosecutor to ensure they have solid case before taking the case to trial. Otherwise a guilty man can walk out of that court and tell

      • Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Informative)

        by Hal_Porter (817932) on Monday February 11, 2008 @11:38AM (#22379516)
        Not all the evidence is circumstantial, there is the forensic stuff too.

        http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html [wired.com]

        OAKLAND, California -- Jurors in the Hans Reiser murder trial for the first time in the three-month trial were shown actual forensic evidence -- a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing.
        ...

        [Reiser's car] was littered with trash, clothes, a sleeping bag and its cover, some maps, two books about murder and an Oakland Tribune newspaper with a screaming headline describing the authorities searching his Oakland hills residence. Still, it appeared as though the vehicle might have undergone some serious scrubbing. The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified.
        ...

        Absent was the passenger seat. Inside the vehicle was a bunch of trash, a socket set and receipt showing the tools were purchased two weeks after the woman went missing. The bolts to the car seat were also found inside, and the socket on the ratchet matched the 12 millimeter diameter of the seat's bolts.
        Now Reiser says he removed the seat and put it in a dumpster because he was sleeping in the car. But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.

        Nina Reiser has disappeared. Hans claims she is hiding in Russia, but she was heavily in debt, mostly due to unpaid child support. And she just got offered a $50K per year job.

        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BAOFUTA27.DTL [sfgate.com]

        Two days before she disappeared, Nina Reiser accepted a $50,000-a-year job with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to help Russian immigrants, the woman who hired her testified Wednesday. ...
        Also Wednesday, Richard Wilson of the TransUnion credit bureau testified that Hans Reiser was $90,000 in debt as of late last month. The figure includes $29,000 in unpaid child support, he said. Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, Wilson said.

        Other witnesses have testified that Hans Reiser complained that his wife was a financial burden to him.
        The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.

        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BASIUUNE1.DTL&feed=rss.news [sfgate.com]

        His behaviour on 20/20 was highly suspicious. Circumstantial admittedly.

        http://www.eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2007/11/hans-and-nina-reiser.html [blogspot.com]

        But realistically Hans's suspicious behaviour, creepiness and arrogance will probably end up dooming him whether he's guilty or not. I think trials are really a question of which narrative the jury believes. If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that. Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off. Then again, maybe not -

        http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html#44890938 [wired.com]
        • Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Insightful)

          by metamatic (202216) on Monday February 11, 2008 @12:22PM (#22379970) Homepage Journal

          ...a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing.

          I'd want to know what they meant by "stained with blood"; that could be anything from a few drops to a large patch indicating a serious wound. My bet is the former, or they'd have been more lurid with the description. In which case it's circumstantial; my wife got a paper cut in bed the other day and got blood on the pillow (true story), but that doesn't mean I murdered her.

          The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified.

          Circumstantial. Ever spilled a quart of milk in the car and had to try to get it out of the carpet?

          But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.

          Still circumstantial. Yes, it could have been Hans cleaning blood off the carpet; it could also have been Hans cleaning oil off the carpet.

          The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.

          Also circumstantial, unless they can get ECHELON to tell us the content of the calls.

          I agree that it looks suspicious as all hell; but the other side of things looks as suspicious as all hell too, when you read about Nina and her boyfriend.
        • by whoever57 (658626)

          If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody),
          The kids are currently in Russia. Their grandmother took them there and has failed to bring them back.
        • If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that.

          I've posted on this before, but perhaps it's worth repeating, although in a shorter version. I speak good Russian and I've spent a lot of time (too much honestly) in that part of the world. I had a fiancee at one time from Ukraine, but we never got married because I just couldn't put up with her lack of respect and constant an
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by lawpoop (604919)

          Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off.

          He's a smart guy when it comes to computers, machines, and inanimate objects. I'll bet he's on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum.

          I'll bet that he's so smart with computers that he thinks he's good at everything ( perhaps even murdering people ). He might think that he can get what he wants out of the jury by using a simple command or technicality, just like a computer hard drive. But most neurotypicals judge people on some kind of gut feeling or likability, not any technical matters like truth, justice, or

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      More appropriate (he was a FS developer after all):
      "If the disk doesn't fsck, then you must acquit!"
  • by millwall (622730) on Monday February 11, 2008 @10:35AM (#22378886)
    What on earth is the significance of this? [wired.com]:

    The officer also testified the defendant flatulated in his face when the authorities were snapping nude photos of him Sept. 28, 2006. The officer said Reiser told him: "'You're about to experience chaos' and, for lack of a better term, he farted in my face."

    Jurors snickered and the defendant grinned.

    "Did you make a report of that?" DuBois asked the officer.

    "No. But it stays vividly in my head."
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jmac1492 (1036880)
      Why were they taking nude pictures of Hans Reiser in the first place?
      • Re:Significance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by teslar (706653) on Monday February 11, 2008 @11:34AM (#22379478)
        Why were they taking nude pictures of Hans Reiser from a distance small enough that it became possible for him to fart in the face of the officer?

        Unless dear Hans has a very violent flatulence problem, there can't have been more than a few inches between face and venting hole and that's quite freaky, none the least because of the implied relative positions of the two. It also raises several disturbing questions at least a few of which contain the word 'goatse'.

        Disturbing.
        • by megabeck42 (45659)
          They were taking nude pictures to document any possible signs of a struggle. Try subduing a woman whom is convinced you're going to kill or rape her - you're likely going to end up with scratches, bruises, or marks.

      • Do document possible marks of a struggle, apparently. One of the official reasons for the police to humiliate people, I guess.
      • by gfxguy (98788)
        Strip search. Yes, they check there. That's how people smuggle things into prison. Why they were taking pictures? I don't know. They probably weren't, it was probably just all part of one session when he was being booked.
    • by TeknoHog (164938)
      You're about to experience the awe and mystery, that reaches from the deepest inner mind, to, the outer limits.
  • The Wired link is interesting if only for the sketches, which resemble the work of the "usual gang of idiots" from MAD Magazine. All that's missing is Sergio's doodles in the margins.
  • Hans Reiser is a programmer who developed the ReiserFS file system as well as Reiser4. He's on trial for the murder of his wife who disappeared in 2006.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Thank you, I didn't know and was somewhat confused. I still however, do not care.
    • by esocid (946821)
      I'm not quite sure why my parent post is getting modded as flamebait. I gave a description of what he's programmed and why he's on trial without adding any personal bias like I think he's innocent and the prosecution doesn't have anything in the way of evidence.
  • Linux & Murder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jlherren (1025754) on Monday February 11, 2008 @11:18AM (#22379348)
    What disturbs me a bit is that one of the blogs doesn't mention the word 'linux' even once, while the other mentions it in almost every entry: "Hans Reiser -- the popular Linux programmer who is accused of killing [...]", "The trial of the Linux programmer, who is accused of killing his estranged wife", "Hans Reiser, the Linux developer accused of murdering his wife", "the 31-year-old estranged wife of the Linux programmer who authorities say murdered her"...

    Of course, his work on the linux kernel might be what he's most known for and if you don't know him, then mentioning that is the right thing to do. But mentioning it so often creates an odd and disturbing link between 'murder' and 'linux'. Especially since as far as I know, his work on linux plays absolutely no role in the murder case.
    • You've just given me a FANTASTIC idea! Joe Shady Microsoft PR Rep
    • He is a Kernel file system hacker, not a Cyrus Imap [cmu.edu] hacker -- they have the wrong man :-)
    • by Otter (3800)
      But mentioning it so often creates an odd and disturbing link between 'murder' and 'linux'. Especially since as far as I know, his work on linux plays absolutely no role in the murder case.

      Wired is covering it in detail for the same reason it gets so much mention here: Reiser's filesystem work. It's not like either outlet spends a lot of time on random murder trials.

  • My late Dad, a retired Cop used to say, "We would rather let 9 guilty ones go free to protect the 1 innocent."

    Now it seems that the cops think "We'll convict 9 innocent ones to get the 1 guilty."
    • by Daimanta (1140543)
      And guess what, both situations are fucked up.

      The first one because it shows that murder pays off(you do not get caught).

      The second one because you throw innocent people to jail.
      • The first one because it shows that murder pays off(you do not get caught).
        No, you just get away with it 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time you are punished. Seems reasonable to me.
  • He's so guilty! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowskyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 11, 2008 @12:32PM (#22380072) Homepage Journal

    Nina Reiser discussed mediation between the two in the e-mail, which she apparently wrote on June 19, 2005. The judge said the jury will hear a redacted portion of the e-mail. Goodman then read sentences from Nina Reiser's e-mail that the jury will not be allowed to hear because the prejudical effect outweighs the probative value: "I will not continue mediation if you keep threatening me. When you give me a hard stare and (inaudible) that you are very good at combat, your request that I drop domestic-violence charges against you, it very much sounds like another threat. I warn you that if you are going to communicate with me in this manner, I will have to end mediation and report it to the police. However, threats are not part of the mediation process."

    But of course, that's not admitted.
    • Re:He's so guilty! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by russotto (537200) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:30PM (#22381450) Journal
      The stuff in the email about threats is Nina's words and Nina's interpretation. It may even be a deliberate lie; Nina could have known it could be subpoenaed and used later in court proceedings. Certainly it wouldn't be the first time there was a false accusation of abuse or threats in a divorce and custody case. Your response to it that it indicates Hans Reiser's guilt demonstrates why the judge felt it was prejudicial.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:18PM (#22381318) Homepage Journal
    I'm often curious as to what those faceless FOSS contributors are doing instead of programming while I'm waiting for them to deliver their next milestone, as they blow their next deadline.

    "Murder trial" usually doesn't occur to me. Usually something more like "new videogame release" seems more likely.

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...