Linus is either immature or just stupid.
This is the guy that signs off on the Linux kernel, he if anyone would know if ripped off code is in it.
"SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from. Do you have any plans to change the current Linux development model?
No. I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it, nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution and source of every single line of code out there. The only party that has had serious problems clarifying what they are talking about is SCO, and now when details start emerging like with RCU, it's clearly about IP that they had nothing to do with, and don't even own. I'm sure that they are confident that they own the collective work of Unix, but that's a separate thing entirely legally from being the actual copyright owner of any specific section of code.
As the founder and lead developer of Linux and the copyright and IP holder, do you intend to get involved in the IBM/SCO legal matter?
The less I have to do with suits, the happier I am. That said, if I'm called as an expert witness, I'll go if only because I'd be curious about the process."
well, if you are not him you are one HELL of an understudy!!
you chime in after him, defend him, talk about many of the same things using similar phraseology, even insult in a similar manner, same class of spelling errors....man, you got the hawecreak act down pat!
but I think it's simpler than that. I think you've been outed dude.
>>does the post I am replying to sound like hawcreak or not? eh?<<
I'm impressed that you would spend the time searching for my posts.
But it still doesn't mean that I'm hawcreek -- because I'm not.
06/30/03 06:07 am
Msg: 668919 of 669155
<Because you're the one making the assertions, I'm just here to put balance to your wild guesses>
If you follow the thread as I have asked rather than blindly responding as usual, you will find I was asked how I got the numbers.
I answered with how and what the number was a year ago as I recall.
YOU on the other hand made the "assertion" that the numbers came from "thin air."
You have shown that your assertion is just more typical blind Dexter BS because given the methodology of my numbers you cannot dispute it but with unbacked words.
Why not just put this "dex" character on ignore? I needed about a post-and-a-half before it became clear that he's a lying POS mesmerized by every word that passes throug Bill Gates' mouth. Reasoning with a chimp would be both more interesting and more productive.
Flush him and his dead-end job at Microsoft.
|then as requested I posted the numbers real time as they were given $33BB.
$33BB according to who? Why would you say 70BB when the real number is now 33BB?
|Why don't YOU do the math rather than blinding asserting the numbers bogus.
Because you're the one making the assertions, I'm just here to put balance to your wild guesses, and that's all they are, guesses. Besides, over 1300 HIGHLY TRAINED FMs and IMs can't all be wrong.
<<Care to show your math or are we supposed to just take your word for that?>>
<No I don't care to. As I said in the original post for real time numbers I did them a year ago.>
No 'math' no credit. Besides, that bill parish 75% is from pre 1998 values..
|Why would you make such an assertion as "no way of knowing"
Prove that you know then, show your work.
You've already stated that the $70BB was reached by taking todays stock price and multiplying it by the dilutive shares. That is NOT an accurate cost of the options.
|Did you take ANY of that into account?>
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
I guess clicky is not the only poster showing tencencies towards episodes. I call BS anyway, multiplying the XXBILLION shares by todays stock price is NOT taking the shares that cost only pennies post split into account.
Get some real numbers, show how you arrived at those numbers, maybe then you'll get some credibility.
You really can't do it can you.
like it or not, you are a troll.
if you understood your own position you could explain it in a concise and understandable manner.
you can't. either because you have a schitck to maintain, and confusion is a key ingredient (a la FUD), or you don't understand it yourself (likely).