In one part of my Q&A with her, Laura DiDio gives as her credentials merely that she is "literate". Heck people become "literate" in the first grade if not sooner. That does not mean they know anything about computers let alone be experts in the field.
Perhaps she meant computer literate, but that is not what she said. An analyst ought to be clear and precise when speaking in the analyst capacity. Moreover, even merely computer literate is far from what it takes to be an expert in the computer arena or to be someone serving in the role of an expert for reviewing allegedly purloined code.
MozillaQuest Magazine: What did you see specifically that led you to believe that the "Linux" code might be purloined SCO-owned Unix code?
Laura DiDio: What I saw appeared to be a direct "cut and pasting of Unix code into Linux code." I am not a software developer but I am literate and it appeared as though it was copied directly.
Merely being "literate" is a far cry from being qualified to render reports and to make conclusions.
Laura DiDio saying: appeared to be a direct "cut and pasting of Unix code into Linux code." is troubling. She has no objective basis to suggest, let alone say, that the Unix code was cut and pasted into Linux. That is a subjective speculation rather than an objective report of facts. All a code-reviewer can do, given what SCO was showing, is what Bill Claybrook did -- that is to report that the lines of code are identical.
Additionally, she does not even seem to know the difference between cut and paste and copy and paste. Perhaps Laura DiDio meant to say that 200-lines of Unix and Linux code that she viewed were identical. That would be an appropriate, objective report of facts. But that is not what she said.
These issues of creditably raised here might seem to be nit-picking to some. However, SCO and McBride hyped the code-viewing event as an event that involves experts. The issues are very controversial and the reports and opinions rendered by code-viewers could have tremendous impact on the GNU/Linux community, Linux users, investors, and more.
That means that the credentials and credibility of code viewers is very important. The code viewers are not mere messengers, they are the message makers. The severity of the issues and the outcomes of the code-viewing require that code-viewers have the highest credibility. Therefore, nits are important here and they will be picked .
I did ask Laura DiDio some follow-up questions to try to clarify her un-acceptably loose language and list her qualifications. She refused to answer those follow-up questions. She refused to provide us with her credentials.
Laura DiDio did not reply with any clarifications of her statements reported in this story or offering any credentials other than she is "literate" or anything else germane to the topic. Rather she responded with an attack on this author and the article stating in part:
It is clear that you took my written responses out of context and twisted them.
I do not believe I did so. However, you can judge for yourself. For more about Laura DiDio's attack on this author and this article, plus her full interview in context, please go to page 5.
Mike Angelo.
