SCO/MS connection?????
-
Via Eric S Raymond[^]. Tsk, tsk. God I hope this is all a hoax :confused::doh: Edit: Also covered by El Reg[^] in more subdued tones. Even if it's all innocent I wish MS would just come out and say what SCO is trying to do is plain wrong. Good PR. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
<extreme_sarcasm> No, Microsoft would never do something sneaky would they? </extreme_sarcasm> Jeremy Falcon
-
Via Eric S Raymond[^]. Tsk, tsk. God I hope this is all a hoax :confused::doh: Edit: Also covered by El Reg[^] in more subdued tones. Even if it's all innocent I wish MS would just come out and say what SCO is trying to do is plain wrong. Good PR. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
It is sad that both companies feel the need to pull dirt tricks to compete. Instead of taking any revenue generated from their Unixware products and pumping it back into development(make Unixware better?! *shock*), SCO unwisely brings suits againts all of the people on their customer list? Microsoft has so much cash that they could easily fund hundreads of SCOs. I bet they could give each person here that has written a score 4 article $20k as a grant to write *more* freely available software to better everyone. Instead they sneak money into a self destructing company hoping to smear what the preceive is their competition. Its wasteful and frankly disgraceful and unfortunately standard operating proceedure.
-
Via Eric S Raymond[^]. Tsk, tsk. God I hope this is all a hoax :confused::doh: Edit: Also covered by El Reg[^] in more subdued tones. Even if it's all innocent I wish MS would just come out and say what SCO is trying to do is plain wrong. Good PR. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
I call bullshit. Here you have Slashdot et al wanting very desperately to link Microsoft to SCO, then whammo, a few days later an "anonymous whistleblower" submits a letter with carefully placed typos shows up at Linux websites all over the web, giving Linux zealots exactly what they want. And guess what? They gobble it up as if their was no doubt to its authenticity; they take it hook, line, and sinker because they want to believe it. My personal doubts come from the fact that this letter is too perfect: the letter tries to damage any relations between Microsoft and SCO, it states outright that Microsoft gave $86 million of funding to SCO, that Microsoft has done similar things in the past, and will continue to do them in the future. Hell, the only thing not found in the letter are some nasty comments about Linus Torvalds (perhaps that would've been too obvious to the average Linux zealot). In other words, this letter gives everything a Linux zealot would want. With that in mind, you also need to consider that these are the same Linux zealots who are so zealous they're trying to get Darl McBride excommunicated from the Mormon Church. They're the very same people who write viruses that launch DDoS attacks on SCO's or Microsoft's website. These are the same people that demonize any proprietary code or even call you the Devil's Advocate for charging money for programs (Bruce Perens anyone?). They demonize Microsoft but kiss IBM's ass, a hypocrisy too blatant for me to overlook. These people are nuts, to hell with them. --------------------------- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -Lao Tsu
-
Via Eric S Raymond[^]. Tsk, tsk. God I hope this is all a hoax :confused::doh: Edit: Also covered by El Reg[^] in more subdued tones. Even if it's all innocent I wish MS would just come out and say what SCO is trying to do is plain wrong. Good PR. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
I find it very sad when the new "business model" has litigation instead of innovation at its core :(( Steve
-
I call bullshit. Here you have Slashdot et al wanting very desperately to link Microsoft to SCO, then whammo, a few days later an "anonymous whistleblower" submits a letter with carefully placed typos shows up at Linux websites all over the web, giving Linux zealots exactly what they want. And guess what? They gobble it up as if their was no doubt to its authenticity; they take it hook, line, and sinker because they want to believe it. My personal doubts come from the fact that this letter is too perfect: the letter tries to damage any relations between Microsoft and SCO, it states outright that Microsoft gave $86 million of funding to SCO, that Microsoft has done similar things in the past, and will continue to do them in the future. Hell, the only thing not found in the letter are some nasty comments about Linus Torvalds (perhaps that would've been too obvious to the average Linux zealot). In other words, this letter gives everything a Linux zealot would want. With that in mind, you also need to consider that these are the same Linux zealots who are so zealous they're trying to get Darl McBride excommunicated from the Mormon Church. They're the very same people who write viruses that launch DDoS attacks on SCO's or Microsoft's website. These are the same people that demonize any proprietary code or even call you the Devil's Advocate for charging money for programs (Bruce Perens anyone?). They demonize Microsoft but kiss IBM's ass, a hypocrisy too blatant for me to overlook. These people are nuts, to hell with them. --------------------------- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -Lao Tsu
Its not "/.", its ERS who is claiming this. He is a visible figure who has a reputation to defend and wouldn't go out on a limb on a wild rumor. Besides this was theorized a bit ago by SCO's filings with the FEC. He annonates clearly what is going on and it seems to follow what they've declared in their filings. Follow the links to see for yourself. Either this is a skillful forgery or the real deal. Beyond that SCO does not make money on Unixware. According to last quarter numbers they spent $3mil to generate $200k in revenue. What VC group is going to be funneling money into these guys? One that has an alterior motive?
-
I find it very sad when the new "business model" has litigation instead of innovation at its core :(( Steve
Better patent that feeling :~ The tigress is here :-D
-
Better patent that feeling :~ The tigress is here :-D
Sorry, but my application is already pending. If I find anyone feeling this way in the future without paying a reasonable royalty to me, I'll have my lawyers contact them immediately. Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true... -
Sorry, but my application is already pending. If I find anyone feeling this way in the future without paying a reasonable royalty to me, I'll have my lawyers contact them immediately. Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...I had a feeling you were going to say that :laugh: Steve
-
I find it very sad when the new "business model" has litigation instead of innovation at its core :(( Steve
How can anyone innovate when they spend most their time re-inventing the wheel since dependent technology has already been patented? :sigh: I whole-heartedly agree with you, though.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
I had a feeling you were going to say that :laugh: Steve
Bad news, Steve... Steve Mayfield wrote: I had a feeling you were going to say that I've got that one covered, too. You can email me your credit card details at your convenience.:cool: Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true... -
Its not "/.", its ERS who is claiming this. He is a visible figure who has a reputation to defend and wouldn't go out on a limb on a wild rumor. Besides this was theorized a bit ago by SCO's filings with the FEC. He annonates clearly what is going on and it seems to follow what they've declared in their filings. Follow the links to see for yourself. Either this is a skillful forgery or the real deal. Beyond that SCO does not make money on Unixware. According to last quarter numbers they spent $3mil to generate $200k in revenue. What VC group is going to be funneling money into these guys? One that has an alterior motive?
Tom Larsen wrote: He is a visible figure who has a reputation to defend Defend? Hell no. He has a reputation to attack, just look at his website. He is a model zealot for Slashdotters everywhere. What VC group would invest in SCO? Oh I don't know, if a company believed SCO can win this battle, there's a hell of a lot of money to be made. Linux zealots downplay that fact and try to make it look like SCO has no chance, will be dead in the water, is doing a pump and dump, you name it they've claimed it; anything to trash them. I sure as hell don't buy into that propaganda; I think SCO has a chance considering their claim has yet to be proved illegitimate. I hate Linux zealots. --------------------------- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -Lao Tsu
-
Bad news, Steve... Steve Mayfield wrote: I had a feeling you were going to say that I've got that one covered, too. You can email me your credit card details at your convenience.:cool: Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...9999-9999-9999-9999 Exp 9/99 (thats a lot of german for "nope!") :rolleyes: Steve
-
Via Eric S Raymond[^]. Tsk, tsk. God I hope this is all a hoax :confused::doh: Edit: Also covered by El Reg[^] in more subdued tones. Even if it's all innocent I wish MS would just come out and say what SCO is trying to do is plain wrong. Good PR. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
Tom Larsen wrote: He is a visible figure who has a reputation to defend Defend? Hell no. He has a reputation to attack, just look at his website. He is a model zealot for Slashdotters everywhere. What VC group would invest in SCO? Oh I don't know, if a company believed SCO can win this battle, there's a hell of a lot of money to be made. Linux zealots downplay that fact and try to make it look like SCO has no chance, will be dead in the water, is doing a pump and dump, you name it they've claimed it; anything to trash them. I sure as hell don't buy into that propaganda; I think SCO has a chance considering their claim has yet to be proved illegitimate. I hate Linux zealots. --------------------------- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -Lao Tsu
You clearly don't know who Eric S. Raymond is do you? Yes he is a proponent of Open Source but dislikes OS Philsophies but forth by Richard M. Stallman. He is far more of anarchist than RMS which puts him at odds with FSF and those who support the GPL. Hey...Linux kernel source is GPL! RMS and ERS are in many ways arch-enemies yet they both believe Open Source is the way to go. You clearly haven't looked at that web site because a couple of places he comes out and says the GPL is flawed because it puts freedom in the wrong place. Although ERS doesn't believe the way Linux is licensed is the best, he sure as hell hates what SCO is doing along with many others. You should check out what many of the core BSD groups think of SCO and Unixware. You hate Linux zealots. I hate all zealots. Windows zealots, Mac zealots, Amiga zealots, Linux zealots, BSD zealots. You know why? Because of what you just posted. Blindly clinging to the "cult of personality" of Linux, Windows, or whatever behind these technology blinds you to what you are supposed to be doing: solving problems. If you are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that Windows can't solve every problem then you have flawed judgement. As I mentioned, why would a VC put money into a software company that sues its clientel? Its not their buisness line (last I checked they were in the buisness of making software not a law firm). It has no growth (how are you going to gain new customers when it is well known that you sue them?). The only winners in this case are the lawyers. Any VC who thinks SCO is a good inventment should talk to me. I have much better ideas on where to put the money that actually involve building technology. SCO is a lost company. If what SCO claims was stolen is so great and important (all evidence so far indicates nothing was stolen: POSIX standard signals, code IBM wrote themselves, etc.), why is Unixware such a piece of crap? Maybe all of their customers are switching away not because Linux is cheaper. Maybe it is because Unixware is junk and SCO isn't providing enough support to keep them happy?
-
You clearly don't know who Eric S. Raymond is do you? Yes he is a proponent of Open Source but dislikes OS Philsophies but forth by Richard M. Stallman. He is far more of anarchist than RMS which puts him at odds with FSF and those who support the GPL. Hey...Linux kernel source is GPL! RMS and ERS are in many ways arch-enemies yet they both believe Open Source is the way to go. You clearly haven't looked at that web site because a couple of places he comes out and says the GPL is flawed because it puts freedom in the wrong place. Although ERS doesn't believe the way Linux is licensed is the best, he sure as hell hates what SCO is doing along with many others. You should check out what many of the core BSD groups think of SCO and Unixware. You hate Linux zealots. I hate all zealots. Windows zealots, Mac zealots, Amiga zealots, Linux zealots, BSD zealots. You know why? Because of what you just posted. Blindly clinging to the "cult of personality" of Linux, Windows, or whatever behind these technology blinds you to what you are supposed to be doing: solving problems. If you are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that Windows can't solve every problem then you have flawed judgement. As I mentioned, why would a VC put money into a software company that sues its clientel? Its not their buisness line (last I checked they were in the buisness of making software not a law firm). It has no growth (how are you going to gain new customers when it is well known that you sue them?). The only winners in this case are the lawyers. Any VC who thinks SCO is a good inventment should talk to me. I have much better ideas on where to put the money that actually involve building technology. SCO is a lost company. If what SCO claims was stolen is so great and important (all evidence so far indicates nothing was stolen: POSIX standard signals, code IBM wrote themselves, etc.), why is Unixware such a piece of crap? Maybe all of their customers are switching away not because Linux is cheaper. Maybe it is because Unixware is junk and SCO isn't providing enough support to keep them happy?
Tom Larsen wrote: You know why? Because of what you just posted. Well smash my iBook and format my Debian box, you think I'm a Windows zealot! Haha that's great. Here I never even mentioned the word "Windows" and you accuse me. I am familiar with Eric Raymond and he is an anti-Microsoft nutjob. He has a motive, in fact, he would love to make this letter authentic. That's why I don't "just believe him" - it'd be ludacris to just believe him outright considering his anti-MS and anti-SCO stance. As far as SCO goes, it doesn't matter if SCO is right. What matters is if the courts think they're right - and EVEN YOU must admit that is a possibility, and with that possibility, any VC might take that opportunity. Don't flush SCO down the toilet just because Slashdot tells you to. Tom Larsen wrote: If you are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that Windows can't solve every problem then you have flawed judgement. Where the hell did you get that from? I never once mentioned Windows being an end-to-all problems; instead, I pointed out the fallacy of "just believing" Linux zealots or buying into their ideas (SCO is dead!) like you seem to have done. --------------------------- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -Lao Tsu