SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX"

eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the 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 contradicts what SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag had just finished testifying earlier that day (testimony that McBride did not hear)."

This should be good

Unfolds chair. Grabs popcorn.

Re:This should be good

Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope.

Re:This should be good

Linux is NOT Unix.

You got it wrong. It's GNU that is not Unix.

Re:This should be good

>> Linux is NOT Unix.
Only 20%. See this proof - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:SCO_proof.png [uncyclopedia.org]

Re:This should be good

You're right. It isn't. It is, however, Unix-like. And intended to be POSIX compliant. And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)... you could go on for hours listing programs and commands that have found their way into Linux from the Unix world. Perhaps the most obvious example aside from BASH would be XFCE, which models its interface after the CDE.

<sigh/>

You expect Slashdot readers to be tech literate, but sadly they ain't. Not these days anyway.

'Linux' is a kernel. Both in fact and in the context of this court case, that's all 'Linux' is. Bash is not part of Linux. Init is not part of Linux. They are programs which can run on top of Linux (or any other POSIX compliant operating system, including UNIX).

Yes, I know we've all got lazy and refer to Ubuntu and Debian and Slackware and RedHat as 'Linux', but they aren't. They are software distributions which use the Linux kernel. The kernel - and only the kernel - is 'Linux'.

So if Novell Owns Unix...

If Novel Owns Unix and if SCO got money for Linux and its relationship to Unix-rights, McBride basically said "we need to pay Novel the money we got."

The only reason I can think he said this:

1) He actually believes it.
2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.

The awesome part about this

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it. That would have to include MS's and Sun's participation in this. I would guess that McBride is enough of a gutless wonder that he would take the deal. But if he confirms that (Gates and/or Balmer) and McNealy were participants to fleece the companies, what could happen to them? I am guessing nothing.

Re:The awesome part about this

McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury

Obviously, you've never been busted, or had much experience with "the system".

Criminal charges come like a tidal wave for larger offenses. Its never, "The state vs McBride on one count of perjury". Its the state vs McBride for a laundry list of ranges of crimes, and odds are one of em will be good enough.

Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "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."

That is utter bullshit. At least where I live, if I go to the local Barnes and Noble, and look in their computer section, there is the Linux section, and under it are the books on "UNIX".

Even though McBride is backwards in his evidence collecting, the same result could be said by a nutcase like him. That Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX that you can't even find a programming UNIX book, you have to look between the Linux books for a UNIX book.

I simply can't wait until this is over. This has been going on how long now? Like 6-7 years or so. My employers have lost some significant amount of money over this thing while I waste my time commenting/reading on slashdot about this train wreck.

Its also interesting to note that chages against companies take about an order of magnatude longer to try than those against an individual. For business, this is just part of the game of business. Even when you lose. as in theory McBride has done here, he has been able to finacially gain what? What have the lawyers and other people part of the pump and dump scam gained as a result of this?

Eh?

I have a copy of 'Beginning Linux Programming' from Wrox. Doesn't say UNIX anywhere. Hey guys, if you want me to testify I'd be happy to fly over. All expenses paid of course.

"Linux Programming" book

Well, I actually do have a book on how to program Linux: "Beginning Linux Programming" (Matthew and Stones), in all its red glory here on my shelf. Now I don't know whether the summary quoted McBride very well and I don't have much time to investigate right now, but if he did say what he said, that was pretty silly.

I also have the "Teach yourself Linux Programming in 24 hours, did not read it much, though. However, it exists, and more Linux programming literature exists, too.

I figured they would do this

In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony. Even though the facts have been proved this theory to be wrong, this is EXACTLY what they have been waiting for.

Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.

They will use the similarities to confuse the jury who have no clue about the history of "*NIX* beginning with Multics. I certainly hope Novell is ready.

PARANOID FEAR: Novell is working with SCO to establish in a court of law, by losing, that Linux is the property of Novell.

Re:I figured they would do this

No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

Re:I figured they would do this

people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I would like to see an example where a "big" company did business with Microsoft and did not end up selling out or going out of business. Even DEC caved into Microsoft,

The obvious solution...

...is to treat Darl McBridge the same way some people dealt with Alan Ralsky: Send him as many Linux programming books as we can.

O rly?

I realize this is a bit redundant now, but Darl, you're a fuckin' idiot. [amazon.com]

Linux a copy of Unix? That's cool...

Darl is a copy of an asshole.

not too often the case of how these go

but because SCO went after some deep pocketed businesses( IBM, Novell, etc ) they actually got a fight instead of being handed over millions and millions. Usually this is a bully vs weakling type of fight and the weakling must give in. It takes alot of weaklings to make a business plan work though so there are $ in the eyes when someone gets the bright idea to go for the big guys pockets.

Come to think of it, Lindows wasn't really a big-guy but I guess Microsoft had to stop them one way or another. I'm thinking of this case because it is another case where the outcome wasn't what was expected. ie, Microsoft almost lost their "Windows" trademark and the result was that Lindows became Linspire, Lindows got paid millions, and Lindows got 5 years of licensed software.

At least the Lindows vs MSFT case only took a couple years. Had it taken longer and Lindows/Linspire might have had to settle for much much less. They were not rolling in the doe.

This case has been dragging on for over 6 years and in that time, just little me, I've had small business owners mention licensing issues with regard to using Linux and OSS. The exact reason why I feel Microsoft and Sun helped fund SCO and the reason why Microsoft created their own SCO-ish licensing threats against Linux and OSS.

Unfortunately, Microsoft is learning alot from all this and will most likely stay way clear of filing suit against any of the big companies using or backing Linux and OSS. They know that they get more value from threats and little fear of having those threats exposed as long as they stay out of court. Their game is to use the threats to keep the Linux/OSS market contained and then use their wealth to pay off any large business thinking of being a GNU/Linux/OSS poster child. They have the funds to keep down alot of the uprising and the business customers are the ones willing to take short term payola from Microsoft to keep the current course with running Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Server software.

Where this is not in Microsoft's control is in government and the public sector. They've already had a tough time using the BSA to muscle some school districts into longterm licensing contracts when the Linux K12LTSP group showed the way to Microsoft/BSA independence and low cost computing. Recent financial belt tightening is opening the door further and there's little Microsoft can do but deeply discount their software and they are already showing signs of reduced revenues( (24%) this quarter ) from their big money maker, the Windows OS.

SCO is smart to try to devalue the licenses paid by Microsoft and Sun and if they are able to pull it off and get Novell out of the revenue stream, Novell also knows that Microsoft and Sun will not ask for their money back. After all, both Microsoft and Sun got what they paid for and that was not really a license for UNIX. IMO.

One more thing, McBride should get burned for what he's done to SCO, IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and all others involved. It was a scam of epic proportions and took way too long. IMO.

LoB

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

"I'm sorry, your honor. I wasn't clear. I was referring to a 1980 bookstore."

Oblig. Strange Brew Reference

Claude Elsinore: And I'd like to point out that these tapes have not been faked, or altered in any way. In fact they have time coding, which is very hard to fake.

The Judge: Would you please explain for the court "time coding."

Claude Elsinore: Well, uh, just because I don't know what it is, it doesn't mean I'm lying.

Obviously, you need a better lawyer.

It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

I worked once for the law firm that helped invent the class action law suit, helped sue Exxon for billion dollars in Valdez and won, helped police the securities industry when there was no enforcement, brought down Milken...and that was just to start.

There is not a writer for a TV show or a movie that could even accurately depict just how smart these people are. Those lawyers ask those sorts of questions all the time. These are all Ivy Leaguers that came from the likes of U-Penn, Harvard and they do. It wasn't even worth lying to these people because they could just pick you apart like a rotisserie chicken and you wouldn't even know it until they are ready to throw the bones out.

Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group.

In other words, what he's saying is the equivalent of "Toyota is a copy of Ford. See, they all have four wheels and an engine, and you drive them with a steering wheel and a couple of pedals! And they both have doors and seats, too!"

The Passion of McBride

We must believe that Unix is a part of Linux on faith alone. This is what we refer to as a "religious mystery," ala the Holy Trinity. Thus, to ask how can Unix and Linux be one in the same is equivalent to asking how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit can be one, yet distinct. I, for one, need no other proof than the Divinely Inspired testimony of McBride, and anticipate the coming day of His own Passion.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

errno.h is part of the POSIX standard and is the property of the Open Group.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

What a load. You tell me which products tell you what they do:

Internet Explorer
SQL Server Management Studio
Photoshop
Windows Mail
Windows Live Messenger
Remote Desktop Connection
Adobe Acrobat Reader

or their FOSS equiv's..

Firefox / Konqueror / IceWeasel...
pgAdmin III / FlameRobin ...
gimp
Thunderbird / Evolution
Pidgin / Gaim
TightVNC / FreeNX
Evince ...

I could go on all day. Sure there are plenty of bad proprietary names, and lots of descriptive OSS names, but suggesting that a characteristic of open source projects is good names is utterly laughable.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.