[Talk] SCO news - analysts says they saw UNIX code in Linux
adam at saki.com.au
Tue Jun 10 10:29:49 EST 2003
Forget SCO, the changes had to be registered in the Linux
revision control system, and that is far less likely to be
tampered with. What needs to happen is that _both_ revision
control logs are compared, they will give time and date and
person responsible. Then it becomes an action against
an individual, which I suspect is why SCO doesn't want to
Con Zymaris wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:14AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 10 June 2003 at 9:12:21 +1000, David Purdue wrote:
>>>See the story at:
>>>A couple of non-programmers from a couple of analyst firms were
>>>shown two blocks of code and say that 80 lines of code and comments
>>>were the same.
>>Hmm. If they're identical, I don't suppose you have to be a
>>programmer, especially if they contain comments.
>>>What they did not see were any change control records to establish
>>>where this block of code came from.
>>You'd think that SCO would want to make that clear, wouldn't you?
> I don't believe that it is possible to certify that the source revision
> system hasn't been tampered with or conjured into artificial existence.
> How, therefore, can SCO prove this point?
> Con Zymaris
> AUUGN - Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter
Adam Donnison email: adam at saki.com.au
Saki Computer Services Pty. Ltd.
93 Kallista-Emerald Road phone: +61 3 9752 1512
THE PATCH VIC 3792 AUSTRALIA fax: +61 3 9752 1098
More information about the Talk