|
|
| Yarro Admits Lineo Infringed GPL Code --DiDio: "All Roads Lead to Canopy" |
 |
|
Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 11:42 PM EDT
|
John Markoff at the NY Times is reporting that Lineo, a former Canopy Group company, sued by Monte Vista for copyright infringement, has settled the case, and that Ralph Yarro admits Lineo infringed Monte Vista's copyrights. And here is the kicker: the code was GPL code.
While the court docs are sealed, the charge by Monte Vista (could there be two companies named Monte Vista?) was that their GPL code was taken by Lineo and used after they stripped off its copyright notices. Gulp. Think IBM might be interested in this? SGI? No wonder Red Hat has asked to see every bit of source code SCO has ever distributed. I wonder if those SCO/Canopy dudes thought it'd be safe to say Linus accepts stolen code because they do it themselves, and GPL code at that? Guilty folks generally, in my experience, believe the whole world does what they do. Liars, for example, think everyone else lies too. Yarro blames it on outsourcing. Urm. Doesn't anybody in his companies ever actually look at their own code? According to this SEC filing, Lineo was a combined proprietary/Linux operation. I thought proprietary companies had this superior fail-safe system to make sure no stolen code ever got in, no? I wonder if Lineo offered its customers indemnification? -- All right. Heh heh. I couldn't help myself. It seems Lineo may have pleaded innocent infringement. I didn't know Canopy types acknowledged such a thing existed. Somebody call SGI. Here's a bit of the Times article: Lineo was sued last year by Monte Vista, a maker of software for specialized computers used in consumer and industrial applications that is based in Sunnyvale, Calif. The Monte Vista executives said they had been notified that software their programmers had written and licensed under the GNU General Public License - the license that governs companies that distribute Linux software - had appeared, with copyrights removed, in Lineo's software. The license, which allows for the free distribution of software, still requires that the copyright notices be retained. . . .
Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy. "All roads lead to Canopy," said Laura Didio, a computer industry analyst at the Yankee Group. "They've been pretty clever in the way they've played this." Clever, how? Can't this gal get one thing right? They've just been caught with their hand in the GPL cookie jar, and she says they are clever? I hope this one time she is right, in the sense that I hope all roads lead to Canopy, if you catch my drift. Yarro is quoted extensively in the article, and he doesn't sound so happy with the Lineo story or with SCO: "This story may speak more to the dangers and cautions of working with these outsourced companies," said Ralph Yarro, chief executive of the Canopy Group. He added that when the incident took place Canopy was no longer the majority shareholder of Lineo. . . .
He acknowledged that the Lineo suit did in certain ways parallel issues in the dispute between SCO and I.B.M. "SCO picked a big fight and it flowed over to the Linux environment and we found ourselves in an awkward position," he said. . . . Mr. Yarro said: "I know I've been painted in a rough light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our lawsuits." If this doesn't beat all, as my dear Grandma used to say. Think it sounds like SCO execs might be asked to walk the plank soon? And that Canopy would like to distance itself from the lawsuit? If nothing else, we understand now why Utah has been a whole lot quieter than normal. Leaping lizards, guys, this feels huge. And by the way, do you suppose they just found out that the GPL is valid and stands up in a court of law?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Yes, now the pot is caught calling the kettle black. I love how he easily
dismisses it as a simple oversight that was none of their doing. SCO can do no
wrong... narcissists![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
PJ, I hope you the posts about the updated SCO FAQ in previous discussion.
Anyway:
1. http://old.lwn.net/2000/features/Lineo-IPO.phtml
QUOTE:
Ownership. The largest owner of Lineo stock is the Canopy Group - it has 44.4%
of the company. Then comes Caldera Systems, which has 13.1%. The "real
ownership" behind those shares could be seen to be Raymond Noorda and
Ralph Yarrow, who control Canopy, though they "disclaim beneficial
ownership." Dry Canyon Holdings has 8.2% - Bryan Sparks, Lineo's CEO, has
an interest in Dry Canyon. Egan-Managed Capital has 6.1%.
2. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-527153.html?legacy=zdnn
"Lineo scraps IPO"
3. http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3637903027.html
QUOTE:
Lineo, one of the first companies to sell Linux-based products and services to
the embedded market, went through a series of layoffs and spinouts of former
acquisitions during the past eighteen months, culminating in a recapitalization
last April (when its assets were transferred to "Embedix Inc.").
4. http://lwn.net/Articles/18259/
Dec 2002
"Metrowerks to Acquire Key Assets of Embedix Inc"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Newsome on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
I'm pretty sure the company is really MontaVista Software, though it appears to be
called by alternate names more often than not :)
Remember (previous Groklaw
articles here and here), this is the same
company that called SCO's invoices a "malicious attempt to kill off embedded
Linux" in an Inquirer
article (also see this).
MontaVista
Software also created a Q&A for
their customers, partners, and other interested parties, and
said:
MontaVista Software believes that the lawsuit has no real
merit, and so has minimal or no implications for companies developing embedded
applications with MontaVista® Linux®, nor for users and consumers of Linux-based
devices. To address the concerns of customers, partners, and other interested
parties, we offer the following Q&A.
---
Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MontaVista - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:29 AM EDT
- NYT as rag - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- NYT as rag - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- MontaVista - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:21 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
I just wonder if it is possible that Boies could have been initially convinced
in a similar manner Didio and some other commentators.
Is this plausible at all?
i.e. This is the scenario:
SCO turns up with a bunch of slides.
They show identical code in Linux and Sys V
They show him slides and stuff with quotes supposedly from IBM, and IBM giving
advice on the Linux kernel mailing list (Look here, IBM is giving the secret of
multiprocessor stuff!)
They show him all or part of the asset purchase agreement, saying that they
bought the copyrights to Sys V from Old SCO
They show him the parts of the AT&T licenses (i.e. without Amendment X)
saying that IBM's license can be revoked
They tell him JFS, XFS, etc., is a derivative of Sys V, and tell him that IBM is
bound to hold these in confidence (selecting quoting from the licenses to
support this).
They tell him they have 3 teams finding all the violations, or something
They don't tell him that SCO helped put JFS into Linux, or welcomed XFS. They
don't tell him SCO distributed Linux, or if they do they minimize it (and
don't tell him they need to keep distributing to get support fees, or just do
it anyway)
He signs up as their lawyer. Now he's stuck as their lawyer. Darl and friends
keep running SCO the way that they want.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
On the subject of Boies & Associates - I am betting that right now there is
a great deal of discussion going on as to how they can back out of the SCO case.
This extra evidence suggests that the GPL is going to be the clinching piece of
legal work that utterly undermines every argument in favour of SCO. Professor
Eben Moglen has consistently indicated that the GPL can withstand any challenge
and events are steadily showing he is absolutely correct.
Playing for extra time as SCO appears to be doing is not helping the cause of
the legal firm at all. If anything every bit of emerging evidence is steadily
loosening the trap-door under their feet and they don't appear to be able to
either stop the SCO exec's from shooting off their mouths, OR further damaging
evidence steadily mounting.
A friend of mine and myself now have a lottery ticket bet on whether SCO will
still be in existence by June 2004. I wonder what the current odds are ?
---
LamingtonNP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
I was looking at this page
http://www.sco.com/company/execs/
According to it R. Duff Thompson and Thomas P. Raimondi are on SCO's board.
According to this link (I found several versions of this press release including
in other languages on various sites)
http://www.unicat-communications.de/tech/php/xin.php?kid=3&prm_id=196
From June 2002: "In connection with the stock purchases, the directors
representing Tarantella, Inc. and MTI Technology Corporation on the
Company’s board of directors, Alok Mahan, R. Duff Thompson, and Thomas
P. Raimondi, will resign."
What happened there? Did they not resign after all, or is the SCO page out of
date? (Skousen is listed a director, so it must have been updated after June or
July this year)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More MTI stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: rand on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
I suspect there's going to be a rash of GPL revelations in the months ahead.
Yarro has boasted about, basically, creating a Linux-based mini-fiefdom under
Canopy (sorry, I'm still trying to relocate the link) and there's probably a
pervasive corporate acceptance of ripping-off GPL/OSS.
---
You know you're an old geezer when...your recreational drug of choice is
ibuprofen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
So, lets say linux code has been ripped off by SCO and placed in Unix. Does
that now mean UNIX is GPL?... and the whole thing not only goes away, but
totally boomerangs?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 04:15 AM EDT |
| ... in the light of the GPL's perfectly satisfactory legality? The
Chewbacca
Defense? And who'll say, "Here look at the
monkey, look at the silly
monkey?" at the appropriate
moments? ---
finagement: The Vampire's
veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well,
cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ra on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
Q: SCO claims it is interested in fixing its supposed Linux copyright issues
and moving forward. Is that true?
A: SCO's claims seem to be false. SCO's actions indicate that SCO perceives
an advantage in keeping its supposed issues unresolved.
As an example of a more usual copyright dispute and resolution, a SCO spinoff,
Lineo, was recently accused of infringing the copyrights of a Linux supplier
MontaVista Software.
MontaVista, presumably after pre-trial negotiations failed, sued Lineo. Later
Lineo and MontaVista settled the case and both companies are now free to move
forward. Parties responsible for Lineo now admit that Lineo infringed
MontaVista's copyrights.
It is important to note that that MontaVista did not attempt to try the case in
the press, did not offer a licensing program to Lineo customers and did not seek
to involve or harass parties not responsible for any infringment.
SCO's claims that it is not attempting to resolve its issues with Linux
distributors because it does not want to stop Linux are beyond ridiculous. Not
only has RedHat, a company with a far larger stake in Linux than SCO, initiated
its own lawsuit that SCO is trying to avoid, but as we see in the Lineo case,
once any damages done are compensated by the parties that did the damage and the
infringement stops, everyone gets to move on.
SCO clearly does not want to resolve its issues the way MontaVista did.
Possibly SCO believes having unresolved Linux copyright claims puts more
pressure on IBM. Perhaps Sun and Microsoft take SCO's unresolved claims into
account when deciding to give SCO "IP" payments. It may be that as
long as the claims are unresolved, people will be willing to pay a higher price
for SCO stock. Of course, from SCO's point of view, unresolved claims are
better than legally debunked claims.
Lastly, SCO may be keeping its issues unresolved because of some form of
corporate animus SCO feels towards Linux related in some way to that company's
failed Unix and Linux businesses.
Whatever the reason, there is a clear legal pathway to resolving any copyright
issues with the actual copyright infringers. SCO is deliberately not taking
that path.
[Note: Google did not turn up a Monte Vista in Sunnyvale CA, but that's where
MontaVista, of "don't worry about SCO" fame is headquartered.][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iMeowbot on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
Gulp. Think IBM might be interested in this?
As one of
MontaVista's owners,
IBM have probably been keeping a close
watch on this one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
" Leaping lizards, guys, this feels huge. And by the way, do you suppose
they just found out that the GPL is valid and stands up in a court of
law?"
PJ you really do have a way with words.i about fell over laughing so hard.
i wonder if yarro even realizes how much support to the GPL they just gave with
his comments
hehehehehe
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
"c) I also believe in the principle that great programmers should
"steal" great code whenever possible, so long as they do not violate
any laws or license agreements. In hindsight, it's clear that
"steal" was a poor and confusing choice of words on my part. I was
perhaps being too flippant by trying to point out that one can't really steal
that which is freely offered."
this was from doug michels
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999051000210NWCY
May 10, 1999
maybe the idea has been always been lets just take what we want
well surprise it isnt as free as they thought
it is copyrighted
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
PJ, Yahoo SCOX board poster, freecode_99, pointed out this interesting link:
http://www.baker.house.gov/News/analyst_revbrd.htm
which shows that the infamous Jonathan Cohen, SCO stock pumper, sits on a review
board that is responsible for policing the same kind of acts he is engaged in.
Maybe someone who understands the political angle can look into this.
---
R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
http://www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,11280,35431,00.html
SCO's former CEO on Linux:
"As far as I'm concerned, it's free R&D."
Maybe Lineo was treating Linux as free R&D too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gerry on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
I seem to remember that Friday was the scheduled (extended) day for SCO to
respond to RedHat's response about summary dismissal. Any new information
available?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19314-2003Oct13.html
main stream may be catching onto canopy?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
As an embedded systems guy (I run freeio.org) I try to get my hands on whatever
embedded tools I can, and I believe I have here the MontaVista and Lineo CDROM
embedded distributions. It would be interesting to run the comparator on them
and see if we cannot find the plagarism in question. Even though the case is
sealed, it should be possible to find the copyright violations, and point them
out chapter and verse.
Score one for Jim Ready and the good guys at MontaVista!
---
TRVTH[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Another interesting link
http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/keynotes/mcbride_keynote_final.ppt
McBride's version of the timeline here
It's also kind of revealing that he tells people who are reselling the product
all about SCO's stock price.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
| http://www.caldera.com/company/
drdos.html
Lineo is a spin-off from Caldera. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: archanoid on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Hey, PJ.
I don't want to stifle free speech, but I suggest you consider
disabling anonymous posting. Just consider it. People are fairly anonymous
even with usernames anyway. And then you can at least see who are the ones
consistently posting the trolls and/or comments that shouldn't make their way
through a lameness filter...like the parent to this one.
Don't bother
checking it. Looks like the slashdot trolls have found there way over here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
I think it goes.
The thief fears the thief most.
For the thief knows the thief best.
For only the thief thinks most like a thief.
forgive me for not including the copyright,
but i don't remember where i read it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
"He acknowledged that the Lineo suit did in certain ways parallel
issues in the dispute between SCO and I.B.M. 'SCO picked a big fight and it
flowed over to the Linux environment and we found ourselves in an awkward
position,' he said. . . . Mr. Yarro said: 'I know I've been painted in a rough
light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our
lawsuits.'"
If this doesn't beat all, as my dear Grandma used to say.
Think it sounds like SCO execs might be asked to walk the plank soon? And that
Canopy would like to distance itself from the lawsuit? If nothing else, we
understand now why Utah has been a whole lot quieter than
normal.
Any bets that Mr. Yarro would be Darl's number one
cheerleader if SCO's legal attack on Linux were going better? SCO is fronting
for Canopy (I think the term in international relations is "plausible
deniability").
If SCO wins; Canopy reaps the rewards. If, as now appears
likely, SCO loses, Canopy wants the blame for the whole affair to land squarely
on Darl & company even though the man behind the curtain pulling the levers was
Mr. Yarro.
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
Think in terms of discreting Slash Dot and the whole Linux
community. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
Looking at question 12 of the TSG IP License FAQ has made me re-look at the GPL.
After reading the GPL I now believe that TSG is in violation of the GPL and it
has nothing to do with the license. As far as that goes I now believe TSG can no
longer contribute any GPL programs or code without violating copyrights.
(Excerpt from TSG IP License FAQ that made me re-look at the GPL license)
12. Doesn't the SCO IP License for Linux violate the terms of the GPL?
No. SCO's IP license is a binary, run-time only license that does not violate
the terms of the GPL. The license only allows Linux customers to run SCO's UNIX
software as it is found in Linux. It does not subject SCO's UNIX source code to
the terms of the GPL.
First of I do not agree with the answer that TSG has for question 12 but I would
rather just discuss why I believe that TSG can no longer distribute anything
that is covered by the GPL license. In court filings and in interviews TSG and
its representatives have said they do not believe the GPL is valid; therefore;
they are not accepting the GPL (they cannot claim they accept it, yet claim it
is invalid). Section 5 of the GPL license states that accepting the license is
the only thing that grants you the rights to distribute the program or its
derivative works; therefore; TSG is violating Section 5 of every GPL program.
(Section 5 of the GPL License)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program
or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not
accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
Go here
http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/breakout.html
You'll Jonathan Schilling listed as doing a Java talk at between 4pm and 5pm on
Monday 18 August
Search the news groups ( groups.google.com is your friend ) and there are
several posts about the law suit, SCO's situation, Samba, etc. (as well as even
more technical posts after SCO stuff).
No, I haven't see anything that some dream of finding, but it's kind of
interesting.
One thing that is interesting, is a general comment about the law suit. I'm
paraphrasing but he says that there are two sides in a law suit, always a
possibility for losing any suit, so investors purchasing on their own risk, i.e.
caveat emptor.
I have not, and don't have time, to review them all
If somebody has time, it might be worth checking thru them, as well as posts (if
there are any) by other people listed as presenting at the SCO forum.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: HappyDude on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
IANAL, so please forgive my ignorance and apparent inability to put words on
paper that fairly resemble my thoughts.
It seems like legal precedent can't be set if a Court seals the documents
resulting from a ruling. If the Lineo case actually establishes the
"legality" of the GPL but remains sealed, how does the precedent
actually exist? Also, might there be hidden, questionable agreements between two
parties that are never revealed because of it?
If one has access to the sealed documents that another does not (i.e. would SCO
now have access to the BSD documents and IBM not?), doesn't that give the
person with access an advantage over all others? Almost seems like Rambus
spec-ing their already patented technology into a standard (without telling
anyone about them) and then turning around and suing the world for royalties.
Sorry about the dumbness.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
| What a great article. When stuff like this shows up in Groklaw, I feel like
sending money to Google, especially when you find some nuggets like
these:
1. Metrowerks purchased Lineo, so it no longer exists under the same
name. I'm sure many of you have already followed that trail. I Googled "lineo
gpl" just to see what I might find, and this article popped up at
O'Reilly.
Lineo's GPL
Compliance Tool by Chris Coleman 10/04/2001
It seems that Lineo, while
still a Canopy Group company, was so worried about the "viral" nature of the GPL
they created a set of tools
"...that check your program to see how
it complies with the GPL. It can analyze a developer's project and ascertain
whether you need to modify a part of your project or not.
The toolset
consists of three parts: the Code Review Wizard, The Library Check, and the
License Report Wizard.
The Code Review Wizard will analyze the developer's
coding habits and reveal any areas of exposure to the GPL that might need
attention. It interviews the developer to determine the intent of the project
and finds out which areas the company wants to keep secure from the GPL. This
part is basically a large decision tree that takes you through all the possible
situations that can be affected by the GPL and other licenses.
The tool was
designed by Tim Bird, currently the senior vice president of research and
development at Lineo."
I wonder how it works when you strip out
the copyright and licensing information from the original set of (GPL) code?
Hmmmm.
2. If you follow the link
in the O'Reilly article, you end up at Metroworks which is still reselling the
original Lineo Tool! One more url and
you end up at the GPL Compliance Tool
"If you want to review
your code manually, you will have to learn:
* What software
components are used on the target
* What License is used by each
component
* How you've implemented device drivers
* What
libraries are used and their licenses
* Which libraries are statically
linked
* Which libraries are dynamically linked
* What are the
terms and conditions for each of these licenses?
If this sounds onerous
and expensive, Metrowerks GPL Compliance Tool can help both individual
developers and their organizations to understand the legal and licensing issues
associated with each of the software packages included in a product which has
been developed with Embedix Linux."
IMHO, this is not a case of
the pot calling the kettle black, it is a case of the extremely stupid and
criminal pot ...
I wonder if Caldera/SCO ever used the GPL Compliance
Tool?
Did the tool work so well it helped Lineo cheat, or was it a
failure and the dependency upon the tool allowed "accidental
infringement"?
At work I always suffer through a series of similar questions
concerning the customer's use of software, and what happens when they, the
customer, screw up. I always tell them it's very similar to developing
Quicken. Intuit can deliver a great product to the desktop, but they can't
prevent the accountant from being a cheat.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
Lindon Utah population 2,796 locate app. 30 miles south of Salt
Lake city which has a population of 163,697 and app. 15 miles north
of Provo which has a population of 74,108 in a state with total
population of 1,461,037 in 1991.
Hum, I believe there are more people living in this apartment complex
than the whole population of Lindon and I know that there are more
people living in this city than live in the whole state of Utah.
One may not think that this affect the issue but it does because this
implies a Small Town Closed Society Judicial System. I do not know
how it is in Utah having never been there but I have lived in enough
small American town to know that the local in such situations
generally believe that every body not local is suspect and most
probably crooked to boot. And! All this in a religiously
fundamentalist state.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Okay, this is slightly off-topic but does involve Laura DiDiot. Is it just my
warped sense of humor, or is this outright hilarious:
Ms. DiDiot sez:
"I see more and more small businesses running servers, even one-person
offices," says Laura DiDio, small-business analyst for The Yankee Group, a
Boston-based tech research firm. "They allow you to get more bang for your
technology buck."
Is this an inane comment? Do people actually pay this woman to spew garbage
like this? Oh, yeah, this was found while browsing MSN. Surprised? Here is
the link-
http://www.bcentral.com/articles/enbysk/173.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800
Oh yeah, there is more-
"Having a server allows me to move more quickly, install whatever
[applications] I need, and project a professional image," she says.
Having a functioning intellect might tend to do the same thing....
But wait- more analysis-
"Both DiDio and Brelsford say servers from Dell and HP that run U.S.
$1,000 and under, combined with Microsoft's new Windows Small Business Server
2003 software ($599 for the Standard Edition), make for an attractive package
that cost-conscious business managers. The Standard Edition also includes
Microsoft Exchange Server 2003."
I need a couple of Rush's pain pills.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
If any readers here are regulars in forums that are pestered by Microsoft
Munchkins, I would like to ask whether you have seen a significant drop-off in
Power Astroturfing in the last week or so.
In one place I frequent, we have a whole crew of Munchkins who typically invade
threads as a group. During the early days of the SCO brouhaha, these guys could
not whoop it up enough. They were still furiously slinging the FUD early last
week, and then... wham... they all disappeared in unison.
It is as if "the word" had gone out from Redmond to shut down the
astroturfing on SCO's behalf. Has anyone else seen this? And if so, what
happened last week that has them scared? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Question - Authored by: bob on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- Question - Authored by: Grim Reaper on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 08:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
IMHO, "I" being an expert analyst in such matters, it is absolutely
essential for any reader who is planning to go water skiing to obtain a set of
water skis. And you can read my article giving 8 reasons why this is so. For a
small fee of course- one must pay for expert advice like this.
The outright silliness of this woman is so aggravating! "Image?" Oh
man, when a business person starts talking about "image" I grab hold
of my wallet, quickly, to keep its contents from escaping.....
If advice like this is how that mindless twit is planning on salvaging her
career, I can tell you it ain't gonna work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5090704.html
dont read if you get upset with fud
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
``I thought proprietary companies had this superior fail-safe
system to make sure no stolen code ever got in, no? I wonder if Lineo offered
its customers indemnification? -- All right. Heh heh. I couldn't help
myself.''
Don't apologize about that. One of the things
that makes my blood pressure go up about a dozen points is the statements
by McBride and company that the Open Source developers have this development
methodology that allows code theft but that SCO and other proprietary software
companies have a bullet-proof methodology that prevents the use of someone
else's code. Well now it seems that at least one of them doesn't and it's good
that it's finally getting some press.
There's some connection in the past
between SCO and Lineo isn't there? Wonder if anyone knows of any of the
activities of developers that have worked for both Lineo and SCO. Might be
interesting, eh? If I were SCO, I'd be very worried.
Say, some of the photos
of the Lindon rally showed SCO and Canopy logos on adjacent corners of the
building. Wonder if Lineo's was on one of the other corners. Wouldn't that
just be too funny. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
