|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
| Gee - such a long winded version of "no comment". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
I'll do the shortened version:
"All hail the mighty dollar, values be damned".
---
In matters of style, swim with the current, in matters of principle, stand like
a rock.
--Thomas Jefferson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
"HP has been asked whether our sponsorship of the SCO City-to-City tour
represents an endorsement of SCO's position..."
'We support our customers; we do not support SCO' would have been sufficient
-- a position that does not offend customers but does send an unambiguous
leadership message.
But no, they don't want to take a position. They sure got the nebulous 'we do
and we don't' SCOSpeak down pat.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tazer on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
HP is a business, and they're always going to do what is profitable. They want
to sell as much hardware as possible, and don't really care what OS the
customer is running on it. If you look at things this way, you begin to
understand the indemnity decision. It was a potential PR boost with no
downside, because HP probably doesn't believe SCO has a case so they'll never
actually have to indemnify anyone, but they'll be able to say, "we were
there for you, the customer".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shawend on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
I think the order of operating systems in this statement
"with strategic focus on Windows®, HP-UX and Linux" clearly
illustrates where th "new" HP views Linux in the enterprise. At the
back of the bus! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
The fact tha HP feels itself obliged to issue a comment (albeit a fairly limp
'it's all for the good of our customers/no comment') is significant and shows
that HP feel that being associated too closely with SCO damages their
reputation.
The statement might not mean much in terms of content, but the fact that HP felt
it needed to be created is telling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: floyds_void on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
When your business is large enough a lot of strange and apparently conflicting
things can happen.
For example. IBM no longer provides small end mainframe machines. About the
only solution available is to run your small mainframe system on an emulater.
About the only certified emulator available is Flex-ES. And Flex-ES, in a
production environment, runs on UnixWare !! So you now have IBM mainframe
customers now running on SCO's os:
http://www.funsoft.com/technical-body.html#servers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jez_f on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
So HP is sitting firmly on the fence and keeping a finger in every pie while
pondering which side is greener.
Sounds very uncomfortable if you ask me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Well, we have a large grant for a Beowulf. We have been tossing back and forth
between Itanium2 and Opterons. We need 64bit computing. HP has helped that
decision with their support of SCO. SGI also sells a Itanium 2 system, so they
are not out. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sauja on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
Did I miss something? (I mean that litterally)
Why all the cynicism? Can HP's statment not be taken at face value, or is there
some history that I missed?
Does HP event distribute Linux? or do they use another distro in thier
solutions?
From a purely business point of view, SCO isn't attacking HP at all, only one
of the many OS's HP supports. And they've taken steps to protect thier
customers.
Nothing HP has done, or failed to do, seems, to me anyway, to be terribly wrong.
Just sound business decisions.
They haven't sided with or against SCO.
I see nothing wrong with this.
James Sauve
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dan_stephans on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
I'm assuming many people have done exactly what I did a couple weeks ago: use
the "feedback to the CEO" page at HP to calmly explain how HP's
association with SCO has removed them from future consideration in my business
(I am the CIO of a broadband cable company). Basically I outlined that I expect
leaders in the industry to take a stand on issues of this level of importance --
not stand on the fence and continue to sponsor the "bad guys."
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
Should be "HP continues to be sleazy and play every side of the
fence." Bottom line is that HP will not take a stance and will say
whatever it is you want them to say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
To me the text reads almost identical to the first HP response when they were
sponsornig the SCO furum.
The next time HP made a comment, they claimed that they were not a sponsor, and
that SCO had inappropriately included HP's logo among the sponsor list.
Seeems to me that HP is absolutely schizofrenic when it comes to SCO, and that
there are internal forces at battle. For now, the persons supporting SCO has not
been slapped down yet.
It is clear to me that linux is much more important to HP than UnixWare.
Therefore, I believe some pressure from linux customers might compel HP to stop
the sponsoring of this criminal organisation. After all, HP is in it for the
money. They stand to lose much more in lost Linux business than anything they
can get out of a partnesrship with SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Deja Vu - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 02:54 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
Dear HP:
If you support choice, why do you support a company that doesn't support
choice?
Stuart Thayer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
That response did everything but answer the question.
All I remember reading is:
"In light of statements by SCO concerning potential intellectual property
problems in the current Linux software development model, HP has been asked
whether our sponsorship of the SCO City-to-City tour represents an endorsement
of SCO's position.
"HP's adaptive enterprise computing strategy is bla bla bla bla
...ZZZZZZZZZ......
"As the leader in bla bla bla ...
... bla bla operating system they choose to use."
Did I miss someting?
---
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
| HP's explanation fails to satisfy me. I am not buying a product from them again
ever again. I am very unhappy with corporations that put making more
money ahead of doing the right thing ethically. I consider people who behave
like that reprehensible an do not willingly choose to associate with them. I
certainly will not encourage it in those with which I deal with,
whether it is people or corporations. HP's willingness to be two-faced in
regards to SCO and Linux just cost them this customer!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
> HP has taken a leadership position in driving Linux for the enterprise,
and recently assumed the risk of offering qualifying customers indemnity against
potential SCO lawsuits relating to alleged copyright infringements within
Linux.
Rats. And here I was thinking that HP had called SCO's
bluff, and was offering indemnity as proof that they thought SCO's case was
weak.
Even if HP wasn't prepared to take a moral position
against SCO, the least they could have done was to state that they don't believe
SCO's case will hold water. Instead, here they are "assuming the risk".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: amcguinn on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
| I think this pretty well bears out what I posted in an earlier
discussion:
I think HP have a very clear idea where they want to
be in this dispute -- well out of it.
I've seen quite a number of high-end
Intel servers in various places; some running Linux, some running NT, some even
running SCO products. But nearly all of them said "COMPAQ" on the front. HP
don't want to piss off any of those OS vendors.
They like Linux, because
every time someone migrates to Linux from, say, Solaris or AIX, that's a good
opportunity to sell HP hardware, but they don't make too much noise about Linux,
because they want to stay on good terms with Microsoft, and at least on
doing-business terms with SCO. I see those as the forces HP are trying to
balance, and that's why they chose to back up their Linux users with the
indemnity program rather than by legal action against SCO, which would have been
much better from our point of view. HP were saying "We're going to keep shipping
Linux boxes, but we have a continuing business relationship with SCO and we're
not going to get in a fight with them unless they start it by directly attacking
us or our customers."
I think that explains their rather embarassed
sponsorship of SCO's roadshow, too.
Of course, that doesn't
mean their cynicism should be praised or even ignored. At the very least
pressure should be kept on them to not renew or repeat their publicity
relationship with SCO -- I would expect that to succeed. I don't think it's
realistic to expect them to withdraw from the relationship altogether. It's
just possible that they might be pushed as far as making a clearer public
statement that they do not agree with SCO's claims regarding Linux. To my mind,
their indemnification made that quite clear, but many people see it differently,
and it would be very good for them to be explicit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bobh on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
| The message I get out of this is that the person who made the decision to craft
this statement and send it out has been made aware that there is some sort of
dispute going on, but that no one in the approval chain understands this
dispute.
From 20,000 feet, the SCO brouhaha looks like one of those things
where your optimum position is to avoid taking sides. That is a good strategy if
you can be reasonably sure that everyone is acting rationally.
This is not
one of those cases. This is one of those disputes where huge numbers of people
have become emotionally involved in how it turns out, whether or not they
nominally appear to be part of the dispute. Those who do not understand that
will suffer for it in the market, and they probably will not understand
why.
This statement by HP is essentially a bet that the incremental number of
servers that will be sold through SCO resellers as a consequence of HP's
participation in the road tour exceeds the number of servers that will be lost
to HP elsewhere as a consequence of people who can apply thumbs to scales
quietly "sticking it" to those who appeared to support SCO during this
nearly-religious dispute.
My reading of the market right now is that this is
a bad bet, and it will on balance cost HP business... potentially a lot of
business. Few people will ever tell their HP rep that the decision went to IBM
or Dell because of HP's fence-straddling during The Great War. But that will
happen, and will continue for years, long after SCO has disappeared from our
lives.
It won't show up for a couple of quarters yet, but if this is
happening we'll see it in the form of market share gains by IBM at the expense
of HP. When HP sees this happening they will likely attribute it to something
rational... perhaps they need a pricing action, or some new feature that IBM has
that they don't. The idea that they permanently pissed off tens of thousands of
people in IT shops around the world, people who can quietly arrange for them to
lose deals (purely on technical grounds, you understand), will come to them
slowly, if at all.
These guys do not have their ear to the ground. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
HP's customers are of many differnet types. Some like SCO and SCO's products.
Some like Windows. Some like Linux. Some like HP-UX. etc... It makes perfect
sense that HP would support customer choice.
WE "Linux folks" are a bit touchy about this SCO thing, but in the
end, HP's actions, or lack of actions, will not affect the outcome of IBM vs
SCO, of Red Hat vs SCO, or remove and rewrite any UNIX code that may, or may
not, have strayed into LINUX.
However, I bet that HP will be there to assist in any way to remove and rewrite
LINUX code if any rewrite is needed!
HP supporting its' customers has nothing to do with SCO. IF they did neglect
these SCO related customers they might even be open for a contract related or
even a HP shareholder related law suit(s)!
The creme always floats to the top!
We Linux users should not be so alarmed by HP or any other companies actions...
in the end, after the cases are over and any, if any, legally problematic code
is identified, then removed and rewritten, LINUX will be even stronger!
A free LINUX - It is our destiny![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Slay on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
| This article from ZDNet Australia seems to be another attempt at
indemnification fud:
"COMMENTARY-- IBM is giving its customers the blues
by asking them to assume financial and legal risk with its open-source
software--that's after those same customers have already shelled out hundreds of
thousands of dollars for the code."
Once again I hate to say this but I
really don't have the time to investigate this. And to be perfectly honest it's
all a bit over my head too, so...
In any case, many thanks PJ et al for all
your efforts and the outstanding quality of your results!
Erik [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
Few people will ever tell their HP rep that the decision went to IBM
or Dell because of HP's fence-straddling during The Great War.
Exactly...
I am not going to email the local Intel Rep who is
trying to push Itanium 2 so hard that he is loosing business from something he
has no control over. Intel might lose business because of HP. The Intel Rep will
not know why either.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Slay on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
| This article
over at TechNewsWorld talks about the SCO-IBM case and has some valid points
while at the same time it seems to assume that IBM is either de facto guilty in
the SCO case or guilty of not getting the SCO case settled ASAP:
"Whether
SCO's actions constitute "a scheme" and whether SCO is intentionally using FUD
are currently arguable issues. In contrast, the allegation that this is about "a
very old Unix" capitalizes on a widespread misunderstanding of the issues and
represents FUD-slinging at its finest.
...
The most significant
threat to open source isn't coming from SCO. It's coming from IBM. SCO isn't
trying to shut down Linux. That demand for licensing fees from users was just a
legal ploy -- one more step in an intricate legal dance to which IBM is calling
the tune.
It's well past time for IBM to act like a grown-up and settle
this issue.
Whether IBM does this in court or through negotiations doesn't
matter; what matters is reducing uncertainty in the open-source community -- and
if the execs at Big Blue can't bring themselves to do it, perhaps Sun could step
in and do it for them."
The following lines in particular seem
peculiar:
"The right answer for open source is to get this matter settled.
If you believe that no IBM personnel exceeded the scope of the contract, call
your friendly local IBM representative and ask that the matter be settled by
forcing SCO into court as quickly as possible.
If you believe that SCO is
probably right, then urge that same IBM contact to face facts and put the matter
to rest.
Either way, the right answer is to quit stalling and deal with
it.
"
Now I could be wrong but I thought that if anybody is stalling it
is SCO, and not IBM?
IANAL and IDNTLAL (I do not think like a laywer) so I'm
looking forward to your opinions on this.
Once more, thanks PJ et al for the
great work!
Erik [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Accoring to a recent S-3, filed Oct 23, insiders are selling an additional
130,934 shares.
Sellers Shares
------- ------
Vultus, Inc.(2) 36,266
Angel Partners Inc. 36,656
Michael Meservy 27,578
Ty D. Mattingly 9,541
Bruce K. Grant Jr. 7,856
R. Kevin Bean 13,037
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746903034162/0001047469-03-
034162-index.htm
---
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RoQ on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
To amplify what has gone before, and perhaps distill it to a core statement:
"If yer not wi' us, yer agin' us" (or for those who's understanding of American
idioms isn't all that great: "If you're not with us, you're against
us".
In continuing to find pop culture references to analogize certain
aspects of this amazing story, I now hearken to "Fight Club", and the scene
where Brad Pitt's character declares
"The people you are after
are the people you depend on: We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we
connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do
not F*** with us!"
Essentially, if you think you're
marginalizing the Community, think again: we're everywhere. We influence, we
specify, we approve. We run your data centers, we write your closed-source
software, we keep the Internet afloat. Do not F*** with
us!
RoQ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Just to play devil's advocate here, let me mention four points.
1.) HP has been supporting SCO for much longer than it has been supporting
Linux.
2.) We still don't know what HP's contracts are with regard to SCO and the SCO
tour.
3.) It's a very bad idea for any business to break off relations with another
business because that business is involved in a lawsuit with a third party. The
message this gives is "We're a fair-weather friend."
4.) Given that HP has customers who have been using SCO for years, it's a bad
idea for HP to act in a way that hurts those customers.
Much has been said here about the idea that IBM is going after SCO because their
"corporate honor" is on the line. Unfortunately, HP is in a
situation where they lose their "corporate honor" if they do the
right thing. They're doing their best.
Alex
---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jeleinweber on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
Advocating "HP is too cozy with SCO, don't buy HP" is what
I believe is called a "secondary boycott". IANAL, but I
have a vague impression that during the 20th century
fights over union rights laws were passed at corporate
behest to make secondary boycotts illegal, because they
were - oh, the horror! - an effective worker tactic.
If so, we'd have the interesting situation that any
*organization* publicly advocating shunning HP would be
breaking the law, but lots of individuals might be
doing it privately anyway.
Would anyone with more legal skills care to comment (PJ)?
-- Jim Leinweber, Madison WI
---
-- Jim Leinweber (Madison, WI)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
Off topic, but what can a guy do?
This
tripe is some of the worst yet. I've already sent one
letter-to-the-editors,
but I think more are called for:
"...[IBM} has refused to assume
liability for its customers
on intellectual property infringements for any of
the company's
applications or systems that are developed on open-source
platforms."
(Julie Giera)
I have to wonder why your comentator did
not point out that IBM does
not assume liability for its customers on
intellectual property
infringements for any of the company's applications or
systems that are
developed on third-party proprietary platforms.
This includes
all varieties of Windows (IBM being possibly the largest
reseller of Microsolft
software in the entire world) as well as
offerings by VMWare, Novell, and
SCO/Caldera.
On at least one line of their servers, Ibm offers 12
Linux options from
two partners, and 15 proprietary OS options from four
suppliers. None
of these seem to come with a certificate of indemnity from
IBM.
I generally enjoy the editorial content of your site and have come
to respect the level of professionalism usually displayed. However, in this case
it appears that either a propaganda piece has been offered as lucid discussion
or that the author is just ignorant of the subject. I prefer to think that the
latter, since I'm sure you wouldn't allow vitriol to masquerade as
comment.
Yours,
Rand McNatt
Unfortunately, I was so
peaved that I forgot to include a link so the
editors could check out the facts
themselves (I guess it's too much to ask a journalist to do it):
Go
he
re and choose any "Customize" tab, then look over the Operating System list,
especially at the bottom. (Oh, and IBM really loves cookies.)---
urk...I
apologize in advance for wrong keystrokes: tendonitis of the lfet hand, the
fingers drag sometimes... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
The judge in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case urged government lawyers
Friday to investigate why only nine companies so far have paid Microsoft to
license its technology for their own software products...
AP
reports here and
here about
it.
Maybe we'll find out finally why SCO and MS bought basically
worthless licenses from each other.---
urk...I apologize in advance for
wrong keystrokes: tendonitis of the lfet hand, the fingers drag sometimes... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
yes HP has the right to sponsor anyone they wish to
but i have the right to use my dollars to not buy their products also
it really comes down to who is willing to speak with their dollars and that will
decide who is supported
M$ had the control for years but they are losing control.most are tired of being
controlled and we are speaking loud and clear with our dollars
br3n
PS sorry to be anonymous,this isnt my computer and has MS software and i wont
use my password on this machine
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mdchaney on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
This is essentially the gist of the emails that I exchanged with Mr. Martin
Fink of HP. Excerpts:
As far as the roadshow, it turns out that
there are thousands of customers
out there who have deployed SCO UNIX. Just
like I didn't abandon my Linux
customers (by providing the indemnity that no one
else would), I don't
abandon the customers who chose SCO UNIX.
This
position probably looked pretty dumb when 20 people (including at least one
Linux guy) showed up for the first road show.
On the roadshow, I
think that too much is being associated with
"sponsoring". Going from city to
city to work with our customers who have
SCO UNIX deployed costs money. So, we
pay for that.
As I pointed out, my concern goes far beyond the
sponsorship. I feel that it was deceptive to ask SCO to pull the HP logo from
their web site while HP was still sponsoring the show. That's why I exposed the
whole thing in the first place. If HP really thinks there's nothing wrong with
what SCO's doing, then they should have no problem with their logo on SCO's
site.
Very weasely, and it's lost them at least two sales that I know
of. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: turambar386 on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
One of the most interesting things about this whole case is seeing the true
colours of some of these companies. Pre-SCO, I was all for Sun and HP. Now I
know that Sun is a snake and HP is just in it for itself.
Does anyone know if HP has actually contributed code to Linux or any other OSS
project? I'd be interested to know.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: linuxtech on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
While HP may be saying no comment, their actions of offering "SCO
indemnification and sponsoring the tour say a lot more than no comment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
HP says it is sponsoring the roadshows as a service to its customers that use
SCO. But as far as I can tell from the reports, there are no SCO customers
going to the road shows, only SCO resellers.
Well, maybe that was not the original plan. But it still doesn't square with
HP's explanation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
| A couple of quotes from Laura Didio. She is talking about how Microsoft is hated
in Europe, and the EU is working against it.
link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: floyds_void on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
>> http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules/ <<
Tell me about it. I'm one of the developers. As far as we know, IBM has not
licensed a single proprietary operating system for hercules. Therefore, it is
not legal to run any of these operating systems on hercules. You can run linux
and older non-proprietary os'es though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
My take on this is that HP is playing both ends against the middle for $. They
are exploiting and thereby perpetuating the indemnity FUD for $. Sun are openly
and gleefully milking the same FUD for $.
Whether in the end this is 'sound business practice' remains to be seen.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
According to <a
href=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095000503001009/p17797_sc
ga.txt>this</a> SEC filing none of the ICP / ICM funds that had
previously filed with the SEC now own any SCO shares.
They seem to have timed things pretty well. Maybe they just understand the
implications of the Baystar / RBC deal as some have claimed on Yahoo that it
will effictively limit the share price to remain around $16.50 unless there is
news that makes it almost certain that SCO are heading for bankruptcy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
PJ, in the interests of fairness, you could start a new site that looks at
issues from SCO's point of view. You could call it.... SCOFlaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
| Some of the posters here apparently think that the SCO road
show was primarily a
vehicle for promoting SCO's view of
their intellectual property
rights.
Speaking as one who actually attended one of the meetings (see my
account
here), I have to say in
all fairness that it was primarily a sales meeting between SCO and SCO's
resellers.
Larry Gasparro, the main SCO guy at the meeting, acknowledged
the controversy and parroted the company line. However didn't even try to
present any persuasive evidence or arguments, even when I pressed him on the
issues. Mostly the presentation was about upcoming developments for OpenServer
and UnixWare.
Apart from myself, and possibly one other attendee who
seemed
to smirk occasionally, I saw no evidence that
the attendees were unhappy over
the IP wars, or even very
interested. If they were unhappy it was over the
inadequacy of SCO's products, because that affects their ability to make a
living.
The turnout was lower than expected (about a dozen people
in St
Louis), but the turnout says very little about the
number of customers. The
attendees were primarily resellers.
Scott McKellar [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, October 24 2003 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
| I found this article from back in January called SCO not very
anti-Linux, at all wherein SCO offers to license their IP for $149 per
CPU:
'While these libraries, now called SCO System V for Linux, will continue
to be provided for free to those SCO Unix customers wanting to migrate to SCO's
UnitedLinux-based distribution, those users migrating to a different Linux
version will now have to pay a fee of $149 per CPU.'
Why did the price go
up $520 since January? I believe this may bear further scrutiny, but I am a
simpleton, so let me know if this is a waste of time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blaine on Sunday, October 26 2003 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
It seems as if no one has touched on one simple HP fact…. HP and IBM are
competitors.
HP’s mouth waters when they look at IBM’s server market.
They don’t need to support SCO, just not support IBM![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
