YATM: Yet Another TSCOG lie^W Misrepresentation


July 22, 2006

Taking (for no particular reason) TSCOG's statement in the SCO v. IBM hearing on April 14, 2006 [ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060508230734757 ], that:

let's start chasing rabbits down holes and see what we find.

Some groundwork had already been done at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060508230734757:

Since I prefer working directly from the LKML archives, let's find this post and see what (if anything) was going on...

Tim Wright was not the original poster in this thread, and in fact made only three posts out of eight total posts made to the thread "[RFC] Semaphores used for daemon wakeup" started by Daniel Phillips, see http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/17/94 dated Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:06:10 +0100

Daniel Phillips starts out with a Request For Comments:

Phillips immediately corrects himself:

So Phillips is working on (I'm paraphrasing, here..) kernel task scheduling with suggestions and review from two other parties.

A reply is received from Nigel Gamble [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/18/153 ] dated Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:14:56 -0800 (PST) -- so we're already into the next day:

At Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:34:05 -0800, three hours after Nigel Gamble's statement, Tim Wright replies [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/18/182 ]:

OK: so Phillips publicly requests comments on the LKML for his approach after receiving prior assistance from two other people, and a day later Tim Wright says he likes it because that's how we did it in DYNIX/ptx (Sequent).

Did Phillips receive information from Wright about how to craft his approach, or did Wright merely encourage Phillips after the fact?

Which came first, the horse or the cart?

Daniel Phillips replies [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/19/102 ]:

Catch that? In his reply Phillips asks Wright if the two approaches are the same. And, he goes beyond that and asks if the two approaches are the same only in spirit, or in detail.

Does that sound like Daniel Phillips has received prior instruction from Tim Wright as to the methods and concepts used to solve this issue in Dynix/ptx?

Hell no.

It doesn't sound anything like that at all.

In fact, Tim Wright [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/19/50 ] goes on in reply:

What does that sound like to you? To me, it sounds like "Yeah, that's not quite how we did it, but it looks like it would work..."

And Phillips says [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/12/19/104 ]:

In closing, let's review TSCOG's statement:

Is that what happened in this LKML thread?


Another TSCOG lie, plain and simple.


< EOM >

1:28:59 AM

Re: YATM: Yet Another TSCOG lie^W Misrepresentation


July 22, 2006

Is this *really* the level of SCOX claims that didn't get tossed? I may wet myself laughing.

How is something like this resolved - does the judge get to see details on this, laugh, and make a PSJ, or must this sort of thing go before a jury?
< EOM >

2:28:51 AM 

Re: YATM: Yet Another TSCOG lie^W Misrepresentation


July 22, 2006

<< Is this *really* the level of SCOX claims that didn't get tossed? >>

This one, 53, was tossed.

A similar item, 23 - logging from Dynix/ptx EES, see http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/4/9/142 originally unearthed by error27 - was reprieved by Wells. This is a Negative Know-how item and, on procedural grounds, she didn't toss those items.

Others we've found on LKML:

IItem 46/236 previously discussed by i_s_g: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/272

Items 232-270: http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/1/5/213 and http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/10/25/225

< EOM >

44:51:55 AM

Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]

Copyright 2006