|
|
| "For SCO, The Apocalypse is Now" |
 |
|
Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:33 PM EST
|
The Motley Fool has a great article on SCO. Hop on over and have a nice time. Here's a preview:
"If SCO thought threat-born licensing fees would provide a quick boost to the bottom line, it looks to have miscalculated. As fellow Fool Tom Taulli noted last month, SCO has tried to cast its lawsuits in apocalyptic terms. But with the entire computing world putting its money behind Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now."
Of course, Ms. DiDio is of another opinion. Can you guess her viewpoint?
Here is the latest DiDio take on SCO. NewsFactor asked her if the SCO-going-global announcement was for PR value and here is her entertaining answer: "Is much of the SCO posturing for show? 'SCO is being very aggressive about protecting what it perceives as its legal rights to the copyright,' Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. With this announcement, 'certainly SCO is raising the noise level and trying to raise the ante.'
"Will the demand for licensing fees have an impact overseas? 'Linux has had a lot of appeal for government agencies abroad,' commented DiDio. 'I think that many of the Europeans are going to do what their American counterparts have done and try to ignore it for as long as possible,' she said.
"Beat Goes On
"'SCO is not going away,' DiDio continued. 'They are in this for the long haul. They have a long uphill climb to win this lawsuit, and it's going to take months, even years. We'll see a lot of legal maneuvering on both sides. However, if they do prevail, it is a huge payday for SCO,' she pointed out.
"'Last year, SCO may have been thought of as a gnat. Today, it's more like a couple of bees buzzing around,' said DiDio." A true believer. She thinks they can win, that they are stronger this year than last. It's priceless. It's evidently very hard to let go of a dream of big money, even if it's (presumably) someone else's pot o' gold. I will miss her when SCO is just a bad memory.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: shaun on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
Why oh why doesn't she just realize she is only hurting herself by defending
SCO? Her opinions and analizations are a joke. Her information questionable and
sources are most certainly not reliable.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:13 PM EST
- Accurate. Reliable. Trusted - Authored by: Turing_Machine on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:23 PM EST
- Good analysts are hard to find - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST
- My guess is, it's her Planet-X. - Authored by: cr on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:54 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 06:47 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: gadget on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
| Why would anyone miss her? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
How come nobody (but you, PJ :)) is noting that SCO hasn't mentioned
any of the sizable risks Novell carries in its SEC filings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST |
I couldn't believe it when I read her analogy to SCOX now being a couple of
bees.
First of all, they sting once and then die.
'nuff said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST |
First SCO claims it's about copyrights. Then change to methods. Then to
contract violations. Then back to IP. (Rinse, repeat as stock declines.) After
numerous threats, the best they have to offer now is "the dog ate my
homework" defense. One has to wonder what DiDio is thinking.
But then the circle around Hitler thought he was a shoe-in right up til the end.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: kerrle on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:14 PM EST
- REALLY OT: - Authored by: PJP on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST
- REALLY OT: - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST
- REALLY OT: - Authored by: PJP on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
- REALLY OT: - Authored by: mto on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST
- REALLY OT: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 10:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST |
| A GNAT settled on the horn of a bull, and sat there a long time. Just as he
was about to fly off, he made a buzzing noise, and asked of the bull if he would
like him to go.
The bull replied, "I did not know you had come, and I shall
not miss you when you go away."
Some men are of more consequence in
their own eyes than in the eyes of their neighbours.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: martimus on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST |
I guess it will take the hearing on the 23rd of January before we know the
character and depth of SCO's troubles, but it seems as if I can hear the
death knell even now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST |
However, if they do prevail, it is a huge payday for SCO
Whatever
happened to the good old days of producing a product and then selling it in good
faith to make money?
Now agencies such as SCO feel they can just try
and buy the license to a code base, re-license it out, then claim foul and
basically turn 150mil to 8bil plus?
Someone please wake me from this
nightmare.
Have we no morals as a
civilisation?
---
...move along...nothing to see here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 10:46 PM EST
- Morals? Whuh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 04:37 AM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 04:51 AM EST
- "For SCO, The Apocolypse is Now" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: cswiii on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST |
Heh.
Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, SCO were to win, who will ever want
to do business with this annoyance, be it a gnat or a bee, ever again?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST |
Lindon, UT
The SCO Group today announced bold plans to expand its SCOSource licensing
campaign to the far-reaches of interstellar space. "As Mankind expands its
domain beyond the limitations of Earth," announced SCO CEO Darl McBride,
"it does so utilizing our IP which is pervasive in all modern software
architecture." SCO, owner of the rights to UNIX and the C++ language upon
which all modern compting is based, benefits millions of licensees throughout
the globe and now beyond. "There will come a day when SCO proudly unfurls
its flag on Martian soil," McBride continued, refering to his settlement
offer with the US Government over its unconstitutional use of JPL technology for
its current Mars mission. "The JPL is a dangerous viral agent to send to
another planet and SCO intends to cleanse not only the Earth but also the solar
system of its presence."
Officials at NASA, who requested anonymity when contacted by this reporter
responded cryptically, "Wow. I thought we employed all the space
cadets." Larua iDidiot joined in comment saying, "While I have never
been paid for my favorable commentary on SCOSource, they're going to need to up
the dollar amount if they expect me to back this crap up."
SCO stock was up 30% on the news.
---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST |
Her research seems shaky and has little relevance to the current situation that
SCO finds itself in. Maybe she feels reading the SCO press releases qualifies
her as an educated observer. My humble opinion would be to offer her a few
choice links to the research available here, and, in a curteous way, inform her
that there may be more information available for her to make an educated and
un-biased report. If she is truly a dedicated journalist, this would be
something she would value. I truly hope this is the case.
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST |
So if SCO is a couple of bees, why does mrs. Didio treat them like a 900
lb. gorilla???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST |
Pulled this from the News Factor article:
"There is some conjecture out that that because we are offering this
licensing in the UK that we are also preparing to sue UK companies. I can assure
you that is not the case right now," said Stowell. "The only
companies in consideration of seeing a lawsuit are companies that SCO has met
with and had dialogues with. SCO will give companies every opportunity to
purchase a license before a lawsuit would be sent their way. We've tried to be
fair about this."
I don't believe this for one second and no one in Europe should either.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST |
Link:
Linux breaks desktop barrier in 2004: Torvalds
Rodney Gedda ,
Computerworld
CW: What are your thoughts on the recent SCO
issue?
LT: This week has been good and I’m happy to see Novell
release a letter that SCO is violating Novell’s agreements. SCO also had to make
available its case to IBM. This reaffirms the fact that this is not about
copyrights but a contract agreement with IBM.
It’s been very irritating
at times with SCO’s ludicrous, unsubstantiated claims. Some of the press has
picked up the SCO case without a lot of critical analysis but lately SCO press
releases have [been subjected to] a lot more scrutiny. Outside the US SCO has
not been good at pushing its case. I don’t have a PR department so unless
journalists come to me I have no way of [commenting on] SCO.
Lawsuits
are a big part of the business landscape in the US. It’s good that this case has
made all the Linux developers aware of code, but it has been bad because it is
irritating and I definitely don’t want something like this to happen
again.
All the Linux developers take copyright very seriously. They are
developers and want to do coding, not copying. Because of this, I feel that the
code quality of Linux is even better than commercial Unix operating systems. I’m
not worried about copyrights but the Linux community doesn’t have a lot of
lawyers, PR or marketing.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST |
how come laura didio is one of the few people outside of sco that darth mcbride
was able to turn to the dark side? she must have bought sco stock when the
lawsuit first came out and missed the chance to sell it when it was above $20.
perhaps that is why she continues to fan the fire which has burned through all
of its fuel. the sad thing is that even after sco disintegrates into oblivion
she will still be writing analysis on the information technology industry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:17 PM EST |
| "Apocalypse" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:17 PM EST |
The Motley Fool gets it right. It's not about the legal case at all. It's
about the fact that so many large companies and intelligent inviduals are
pouring energy and resources into Linux. Even if the lawsuit was looking bad for
IBM, I would say the same thing. There's a deep pool of resources available to
Linux.
On Didio, and the other detractors, I have stated before that I hope that they
put their all into this attack, and pin their hopes on this case. When the case
fails, a lot of this criticism will be found baseless, and Linux will gain a big
boost. We're lucky that the press is paying attention at all. It's free
advertising.
"Say what you want about me, just spell my name right." -Mae West[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:23 PM EST |
When will SCO dance the Apocalypso?
Apocalypse means the unveiling.
So when is SCO going to Show?
Much less place or win?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST |
What happened, did DiDio buy a ton of stock when it was at $22, expecting it to
actually hit $45 some day?
I don't have a clue... just trying to figure out why she works so hard to
defend SCO. Maybe she simply needs to lie to herself and believe that she
won't lose money on the deal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CPD on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
Am just imagining things, or has the "DiDio spin" gone from
"SCO has a great case and is going to drive IBM into the dirt" to
"SCO has a real uphill battle, but look at the payoff if by some chance
they win"?
This time she really did seem to me to be damning with faint praise.
Colin
---
Just when I thought it couldn't get any wierder, SCO proved me wrong again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:37 PM EST |
Although I'd love to see SCO and their #1 fan, Didiot, dry
up and blow away, I
must confess: I will surely miss the
laughably entertaining press releases
when this is done.
I have a warped sense of humor which is why I love
comedy
shows like SouthPark and Malcolm in the Middle. Cynical
to the core,
and offensively entertaining.
But nothing beats a good quote from
Didiot. Just when you
thought the boundaries of human ridiculousness have been
reached, Didiot sets new ones. No South Park or Malcolm
episode can touch
this type of entertainment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: captainhaddock on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST |
Better-than-expected results from Sun, a company many had already declared as
dying. The Yahoo! article notes that Linux has played a part in the company's
recovery.
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/040115/na_fin_earns_us_sun_microsystems_2.html
Paul D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SteveS on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST |
I like this part:
"SCO claims that residual bits of the UNIX
operating system -- which it owns -- exist in Linux."
I don't think
these Fools are being fooled anymore - even the financial community is looking
at, and questioning the line they are being fed about the quantity of
infringement that is possibly in Linux.
"Residual bits"
doesn't much sound like "MILLIONS" of lines of code to me...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Residual bits... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 01:45 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
Didio "what it perceives as its legal rights", "They have a
long uphill climb to win", "if they do prevail"
Are the faithfull beginning to crack?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
This might be a little off topic but does anyone read CRN magazine? I just
happened across the November '03 issue with the cover story, " Top 25
CEOs". You would probably never guess who made the list, (except that I'm
posting to Groklaw). That's right, everyones pal and upstanding CEO Darl
McBride. They gave him kudos for standing up for his companies rights!?!? Do
these people do any research before they write about industry figures?? To top
it all off he's on the list with the likes of Steve Jobs and Sam Palmisano. I
think it's a no brainer to figure out that SCO will never stack up to the
Apples or IBMs of the world, even if the management can keep themselves out of
jail.
I just had to rant! :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DarrenR114 on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST |
| Laura DiDio has been misinforming the public since at least the early 1990s when
she was the "LAN Times East Coast bureau chief".[1]
In 2000, it appears
that she was part of the Giga Group[2], which is a think-tank with the most
fierce Microsoft loyalty known to mankind. I've never seen anything resembling
objective analysis come out of that group. If you're wondering where you've
heard of the Giga Group elsewhere, you might be thinking of Rob Enderle. Rob
Enderle was the foremost Linux-basher at Giga until he formed his own think
tank, the Enderle Group. He made several pronouncements about Linux during his
tenure at Giga and not one of them proved true. Personally, I think they canned
him. Curiously enough, two of the most outspoken analysts speaking in support of
SCO have been Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio. This begs the question "has anything
good ever come out of Giga Group?"
Here's what Giga Group[3] has to say
about Ms. DiDio's qualifications:
Laura DiDio is an analyst
covering Windows 2000 and third-party products and utilities.
Laura comes to
Giga after having spent 12 years covering the networking industry as a reporter
in the high-
tech trade press. She was most recently at Computerworld where she
was the senior editor, networking, from
1994 to 1998. Prior to that, she held
similar positions at LAN Times, Network World, Internet Week
(formerly
Communications Week) and Digital Review. She also worked as an
on-camera investigative reporter for CNN
and Channel 11 News in Minneapolis,
Minn. Her investigative reports have also appeared in such
publications as the
Minneapolis Star and Tribune and The Village Voice.
Laura earned a B.A. in
communications with a minor in French at Fordham
University
Here's what Ms. DiDio's current employer[4] has
to say about her qualifications:
Laura DiDio is a senior analyst
for the Yankee Group's Application Infrastructure & Software
Platforms
Planning Service, which is closely aligned with the Enterprise Computing &
Networking
Planning Service. In this capacity, Ms. DiDio focuses on desktop and
server operating systems,
with a particular emphasis on Microsoft Windows 2000,
Windows XP, Active Directory, and
Novell, Inc.'s NetWare. Additional areas of
coverage are Web services platforms and standards
including Microsoft’s emerging
.NET services and the rival J2EE. She also covers the directory
services arena
and interoperability and migration issues associated with Active
Directory,
eDirectory, and Sun's iPlanet, as well as desktop and server
operating system security, software
distribution, and third-party performance
monitoring and management tools.
Ms. DiDio has covered client and server
operating systems, directory services, and OS and NOS
security for 15 years as
an analyst, reporter, and editor. Prior to joining Yankee Group, she spent
three
and a half years at Giga Information Group, where she held a similar position.
Before that
she held various reporting positions at a number of computer
networking industry trade
publications including: Computerworld, Network World,
Communications Week, LAN Times, and
Digital Review. Ms. DiDio also worked as an
investigative reporter for various broadcasting and
print outlets including CNN
and Channel 5 News in New York. Her investigative reports have
also appeared in
The Village Voice and The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Laura DiDio holds a B.A. in
Communications and a minor in French from Fordham
University.
Curiously, what I find missing is any
background information that shows Ms. DiDio is qualified to make any kind
analysis on IT companies. She was educated as a journalist. She held several
reporting jobs before becoming an 'analyst'. And it seems to me, she wasn't even
a good reporter. As she has no background in either the legal or computer
professions, why are people listening to her ramblings?
1.
www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/vcl.htm
2.
h30081.www3.hp.com/products/prm/docs/GigaMay00.pdf
3.
www.gigaweb.com/Content_PDF/Bios/out/RBI-032000-00028.pdf
4.
www.yankeegroup.com/public/events/conferences/ITF2003/
components/IntegrationTechForumSpeakers.pdf
---
No job is too
small for dynamite ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Utah on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:10 PM EST |
Can SCO's case be decimated before it reaches trial? Maybe so.
By
making discovery requests whose relevance hinge on the validity of SCO's
"derivative works" theory, they open that theory to challenge during discovery.
IBM could conceivably reject their discovery request and invalidate their key
argument in one fell swoop.
Here's how I see it. (I am most definitely
NAL. This will look ridiculous to those of you who are, but try to humor
me.)
Mr. Marriott: "Your honor, let me review the situation that was
addressed by the previous hearing. SCO had requested 40 million pages of code
from us. Our response was that SCO must make their allegations more specific in
order to determine how much of the requested code was relevant to those
allegations. SCO's response to that was that they needed all of our code in
order to determine the specifics of their allegations.
"As your honor
pointed out in that hearing, this was a circular situation. It was determined
by the court that the proper order was for SCO to first specify the alleged
infringements, and then it could be determined which of their discovery requests
were actually relevant.
"SCO is now saying that they will specify some
infringing code now, and then specify more later after receiving IBM's code.
This proposal defies the court order from the previous hearing. But rather than
focus on SCO's failure to comply, we would like to move that SCO's request for
AIX and Dynix code be rejected unless they can explain the purpose of their
request.
"If we may, we would like to address what we see as the heart
of this circular discovery problem. SCO is claiming that some of the code in
Linux was improperly contributed by IBM. One may ask, why does SCO need to see
AIX and Dynix code in order to determine which code in Linux was improperly
contributed? Can't SCO simply compare Linux to SCO's own code to see if any of
SCO's code ended up in Linux?
"The answer is that SCO is not claiming
that IBM contributed SCO's code to Linux. Rather, they are claiming that IBM
contributed IBM's own code to Linux. We refer you to Mr. McBride's statement in
the previous hearing:
'And once we see AIX and all versions
of it,
then we will be in a position to be able to say, Huh, you know what?
This stuff
you did in derivative works, you own it, but you contributed to
Linux
improperly, and, therefore, we have a claim in state law contract for
breach of
confidential information...'
"But SCO has failed to explain what
terms of the contract are broken by IBM contributing IBM's own code to Linux.
The contract does not require IBM to keep its own code confidential. In fact,
we refer the court to section 7.06(a) in the IBM/AT&T side
letter:
'Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from
developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how
or techniques relating to data processing embodied in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject
to this Agreement, provided that LICENSEE shall not copy any code from such
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS into any such product or in connection with any such
service...'
"Applying this clause to the current situation, it is
clear that IBM cannot be prevented from helping to develop Linux, as long IBM's
contributions are free of SysV code.
"Let's repeat this, because this
is the key to the discovery situation: According to the AT&T/IBM side
letter, SCO cannot prevent IBM from contributing to Linux as long those
contributions are free of SysV code. In light of this, SCO needs only to
compare SysV to Linux in order to determine improper contributions. Therefore,
our position is that AIX and Dynix code are irrelevant to this
case."
Don't worry. I won't quit my day job.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:10 PM EST |
LOL!!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST |
When reading Ms DiDio's comments, is anyone reminded of <a
HREF="http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/" Muhammed
Saeed al-Sahaf>(the Iraqi Information Minister)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST |
It's always nice to hear alternate views of reality.
When does the anti-psychotic kick in?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: prong on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST |
I've been a fan of The Motley Fool for a long time. They take a balanced,
practical, and generally conservative view of investing, and they provide a
great deal of information for free. They also don't hesitate to call people or
institutions on the BS that is spewed out for public consumption. Nice to see
the tradition continue.
It seems to me that Ms. Didio's background includes
absolutely nothing which qualifies her to evaluate SCO's legal chances,
technology, or business prospects. Having been a consumer of the technology
research community's product for more than 10 years, my approach has evolved to
reading the abstract and then the author's bio. If I can't reconcile the two, I
chunk the report. Enough bad reports, I cancel my subscription. Period.
As a
side note, it's doubtful that I'd ever trust anything that came out of something
that calls itself "The Yankee Group" anyway, given my background. :)
-prong [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST |
why worry about duhdildo?
you can't change her because you can't polish a turd.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST |
The world according to DiDio seems to get more surreal the longer this goes on.
It's getting embarrassing. I almost feel bad for her. It didn't start out
this way -- she first came across as just sort of clueless, and wrong on the
issues. Now it's a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". Or
more accurately "in for a pound, in for a penny", given the stock's
downward trending.
Sticking up for your old friends when they're tied up in a nasty court case
isn't a terrible impulse. It's just really sad when it turns out your friends
are in the wrong, and they drag your career down along with theirs. On the
other hand, if you're so personally involved with a given stock that you can't
tell people to dump it when things go south, you shouldn't be offering analysis
on it.
I don't know what's more ridiculous: stock analysts who think they're
lawyers, or stock analysts who think they're programmers. It's never wise to
predict the outcome of a technical or legal conflict that you don't comprehend
based solely on what you hope the stock will do as a result.
...but when it happens, it's really funny to watch. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DiDioworld - Authored by: prong on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST |
"A true believer."
How about, "A conflict of interest."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sam on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST |
| On January 7 in his letter to Novell, Tibbets writes
this:
"...Additionally, in Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase
Agreement, it was agreed that Novell could not prevent SCO fro exercising its
rights under the agreement with respect to protecting SVRX source code.
These certifications go directly to SCO's protection of its assets and
particularly its SVRX source code."
Emphasis mine.
This
belies statements made in court and the substance of his own affidavit that the
entire suit is about IBM not having kept its derivative code
confidential, that there is no SVRX source code to be found in Linux and that
IBM truly *owns* its own code.
Presumably it's accepted practice for lawyers
to lie, (except in court .... most of the time) but this just makes him look
bad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eris on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:19 PM EST |
Godwin's Law is way older than Slashdot. It comes from
Usenet newsgroups,
and it states that in any discussion,
someone is bound to mention the Nazi's
at some point, and
as soon as that happens the discussion has come to an end
and no further intelligent converse can occur.
Here's how it is
forumlated in teh Jargon File: http://www.catb.
org/~esr/jargon/html/G/
Godwins-Law.html ---
Eris Caffee
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST |
SCO is *nothing* like "a couple of bees buzzing around". Bees
produce a valuable and useful product, for one thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST |
``I will miss her when SCO is just a bad
memory.''
I won't. One thing that this industry has had too
many of for far too long is clueless pundits. To be sure there are a few good
ones who write thoughtful and informed articles. She is not among this group.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:35 PM EST |
This is old but gives some clues to her previous work history.
http://www.gigaweb.com/Content_PDF/Bios/out/RBI-032000-00028.pdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:44 PM EST |
| http://www.cio.com/archive/020100/opsys.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:48 PM EST |
She seems to be saying that the likelihood that SCOG are right is not very high,
but if they are, the potential payoff is quite large. I think that this is the
basis of her evaluation of SCOG's market value. For example, with a market cap
of 200 million (216m cob 1/15), and a value of, say, 10 Billion if they win big,
there is an implicit (risk neutral) probability of 2% on winning big. If she
thinks that the likelihood is 5%, then she sees the value as 500 million (a
share price of $45).
One thing that bothers me is that she can be making recommendations on
buying/not buying the company based on privileged information (via the NDA).
This crosses a line that I am not comfortable with. It is a form of inside
information as far as I am concerned.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:54 PM EST |
I was just wondering what the history behind SCO's claim of the
C++ copyright is. I've seen lots of detailed discussion of the
history of the UNIX src and how SCO obtained its [fill in whatever
SCO actually does have, if anything] but I haven't seen much if
anything about C++. Did this tag along with the UNIX codebase,
or is this a separate arrangement? How many, if any, C++
compilers DO pay SCO for it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 09:15 PM EST |
Not as sexy a comparison as you might want, but the more I get into TeX and
LaTeX, the more amazed I get at the power of open source.
Donald Knuth wrote TeX in the late '70s and early '80s (this is even before
Stallman) because there was nothing really professional and polished a computer
user had to write with, especially for typesetting mathematical formulas. (Think
what Microsoft was at the time.)
TeX has been free and open source since the start. Now, there are thousands of
specialized macros people all over the world have written with TeX and (later)
LaTeX to meet their needs, things Knuth never had any intention of doing
himself.
You can score sheet music (MusicTeX) with it now. How much would Microsoft
charge for such a thing?
Microsoft has, what, thousands?, of programmers. Linux will have millions. Just
like TeX and LaTeX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST |
I've heard that she's getting paid by SCO.
;)
The sink hole keeps gettin bigger [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 02:16 AM EST |
I will miss her when SCO is just a bad memory.
In the same way
we all miss the Iraqi Information Minister... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 06:30 AM EST |
I was thinking about interrogetaries that were not satisfied by the 12th Jan or
was it 10th Jan. But SCO are going to satisfy before the 23rd.
How is this for a scenario.
SCO provide IBM with a pile of info (relevant or other wise) on the 22nd. This
way they keep to what they have said and IBM are forced to ask for a
postponement while they go through the information. This allows SCO to claim
that IBM are dragging their feet even though SCO have provided the information.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:10 AM EST |
I like to think of SCOG as a bee. But I also think of IBM as the windshield of a
Mack truck. The truck won't feel a thing and the bee will be dead.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST |
Sure Didio signed the NDA, but that was some time ago.. Didn't she really just
see the laughable presentation that was put on in vegas by Mcbride and his
cronies? <br><br>
Really, if you consider, all she saw was two sets of code, in a controlled
environment. She's not a Kernel developer, and has no real history background
when it comes to Linux lineage. With that in mind, how can anyone really take
her opinion seriously? What does she know of the source of anything that she
looked at? Is she just taking SCO's word. (Gasp! Why would they lie to such a
sweet girl). <br><br>
Perhaps the Yankee Group should send someone qualified to look at the code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Didio's Flaw? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: walth on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST |
'certainly SCO is raising the noise level and trying to raise the
ante.'
I know this is unpopular on slashdot or groklaw, but I happen
to agree with Laura on this point.
I think she is entirely correct in
that the SCOG is trying to raise the noise level. Never having had a very high
signal-to-noise ratio to start with, they are definitely raising the noise level
while not improving the signal at all - further reducing their S/N
ratio.
And they are definitely trying to raise the ante, as that s the
way you bluff a pot. You keep raising until everyone else folds, and you win by
default - NOT by having good cards. Of course, if you don't have enough
resourses, you may not be able to out raise the other players. And if no one
raises back (they only call the bet) then you are forced to show your cards. If
you are bluffing, a disaster!
Sometimes even idiots get it
right...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anesq on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST |
At least the statements quoted above are. Look at this quote, for example:
"'SCO is not going away,' DiDio continued. 'They are in this for the
long haul. They have a long uphill climb to win this lawsuit, and it's going to
take months, even years. We'll see a lot of legal maneuvering on both sides.
However, if they do prevail, it is a huge payday for SCO,' she pointed
out."
All of this is true. Until it loses its suit, SCO is not going away. They have
an uphill battle in the suit, and it could take years to finally resove the IBM
suit, let alone other suits SCO may be foolish enough to bring. There already
has been a lot of legal maneuvering by both sides, and there is no reason to
believe that will change. And if SCO were to win, I don't think anyone would
disagree that $3 billion is appropriately characterized as a "huge
payday."
There may be key facts that are missing that make for the complete story (most
obviously, the likelihood of success), but each fact Ms. DiDio is quoted as
saying above is in fact true. She should at least be given credit for that;
it's more than can be said for many at SCO itself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST |
So how long does it take to read millions of lines of code? Twice no less to
allow a comparison.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST |
Is it possible to find a list of those who are paying these idiotic (SCO)
licensing fees before the case is even decided? I have a fresh batch of
(etherware) invoices I'd like to start mailing out too.
Darl, you must be illiterate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST |
> But with the entire computing world putting
> its money behind Linux, it appears that, for
> SCO, the apocalypse is now.
the above sentence more accurately written:
But with the entire computing world *minus Microsoft* putting its money behind
Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 05:23 PM EST |
Our favorite Analysts have uttered pearls of wisdom not only about
Linux, but about Apple Computers too:
Laura Didio had nice things to say about Apple in 2002:
A study by the Yankee group concludes that Apple cannot be discounted
from the business-machines picture.
Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio. said: "There is a cumulative
dissatisfaction [with Windows]…and it raises the possibility that OS X can
gain new footholds in an overwhelmingly Windows world."
"It's like these people have been living in a Microsoft-sponsored cave
for
ten years," DiDio said. "You'd tell them about Linux and Apple and
they'd
insist that Microsoft must already own them. You'd say there are
alternative operating systems and they'd say 'You mean XP Professional
and XP Home?'"
"Sometimes it was all I could do to keep from smacking them," DiDio
admitted.
In many cases, DiDio said, IT professionals simply would not believe her.
"We literally had to show them a Macintosh or Intel hardware running
Linux. Some of them were afraid to touch them."
Obviously, Apple can buy favorable studies by the Yankee Group, like
everyone else...
Rob Enderle recent comment about Apple:
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/32336.html
"Right now, Apple has nothing like the Media Center PC and nothing like
the Tablet PC. The iPod is terrible as a PDA, the company has no
smartphone, and you'll find more cool stuff in a Gateway store than in an
Apple store today."
See also John Gruber flame: Rob Enderle: Putting the ‘Anal’ in ‘Analyst’
http://daringfireball.net/2003/12/enderle
Speaking of jackasses, how about technology industry “analyst” Rob
Enderle? Enderle is both:
Frequently quoted in major mainstream media
Nearly always completely wrong (at least regarding Apple)
One would hope these two facts would be mutually exclusive — that a
self-professed industry expert whose pronouncements about Apple were
nearly always wrong would eventually stop being asked for his opinion
about the company and its products. But alas, no.
MacObserver maintains an Apple Death Knell's page,
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml
Rob Enderle has predicted Apple demise 4 times so far.
My personal prediction is that Apple will outlive The Enderle Group.
Sorry, folks, I couldn't google any Dan Lyons oracles about Apple.
_Arthur
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
