[TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs

[lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)]

> SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
> them for the fruads that they have become.

In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this
stuff is more complex than it seems.  For instance, I am pretty sure
that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you
doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v
or v7 code.  bmap() is a good place to look.  Any suggestions that that
was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion.
I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately
familiar with the code.  In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk
wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the
allocation policy is 90% of the file system).

I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes.  And I
think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations
(we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without
peer in that department :-)  But I suspect that there is at least some
merit to what they are claiming.  I have to believe that nobody is stupid
enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing.
That's just way too far over the top.  Anything is possible I guess,
but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would
commit that public a suicide?  I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm
a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is
no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up.
I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it,
they have more experience.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm