|
| Authored by: djand on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:12 AM EST |
I can't help but think that Darl is bound and gagged somewhere behind a desk on
the demands of both the SCO Board and the attorneys. That is a pretty tame
statement after court compared to what the PR had suggested.
Does anyone else get the impression that SCO would really like a painless exit
strategy from this case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:41 AM EST
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:19 AM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:55 AM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: cheros on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- Painless Exit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:14 AM EST
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST
- I got it! I finally figured it out! - Authored by: Jude on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST
- We miss you Darl! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:12 AM EST
- SCO *still* talking to the press - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST
- Where's Darl?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:40 AM EST |
The odds have just increased massively that Judge Wells, during her pre-hearing
in-chambers session with counsel, instructed SCO's boys to end or substantially
tone down the FUD/PR outside of court.
There is no other obvious explanation for SCO's a) failure to make good on their
promise of a press conference immediately after the hearing, and b) failure to
spin the day's events to their advantage. Time will tell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:43 AM EST |
"What is so rare in this coverage is that they include IBM's statements in
court, not just SCO's. How refreshing."
Unfortunately, it's just as refreshing as it is still unusual. However, we have
to deal with press coverage as it is rather than as we would wish it to be, and
it is more effective to get it to change than to contact the unwashed authors
and bemoan and cuss them: better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Fredric on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:44 AM EST |
"Tech research company Gartner is predicting that by 2005,
Microsoft's server software products will be at, or above,
the industry security average. . . ."
I always figured that MS products _defines_ the average.
---
/Fredric Fredricson
--
- Are you the one the call "the bravest man in the world"?
- Yes, I'm afraid so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:48 AM EST |
""SCO issued a one-paragraph statement after the hearing in which it
said: 'On February 6, 2004 the court followed up on its prior hearing, and heard
motions to compel discovery from both SCO and IBM. The court took the matter
under advisement and indicated that a written ruling would be forthcoming within
the period of about a week.'"
The SCO Group's statement is unusually subdued, given its propensity for
rhetorical pyrotechnics. The SCO Group is most probably selfishly hoarding some
bad news about itself rather than share it with us. Tsk, tsk![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:57 AM EST |
'contrary to its representations to the court on January 12, 2004, SCO now
admits that it has in fact not produced numerous categories of non-privileged
responsive documents.'
So IBM are effectively saying that SCO has admitted making false representations
to the court.
How serious is it for lawyers to make false representations to the court? Or can
they always make some weak argument along the lines of "given what we knew
at the time"?
On the face of it, that seems pretty serious to me.
I suppose it may be a minor point given the big picture, but IBM got their own
point across quite well didn't they.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nvanevski on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST |
| In I.T. Vibe's story
someone named Mark Modersitzki is presented as a spokesperson for SCO.
What happened to our beloved Mr. Stowell? Is there any change we should know
about? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:11 AM EST |
"Robert Taylor" is an avid reader of Groklaw (I should know :).
The IT Vibe story had been picked up by Google and was the subject of a Google
News Alert which I received this morning.
Rich Kavanagh, editor of IT Vibe, not only responded to my letter but posted his
revised story in less than an hour this morning. Kudos to him and IT Vibe, for
their quick response and care for the facts. And thanks to PJ for building,
nuturing Groklaw into a place where the Linux community can point journalists
and other professionals to learn the truth about Linux and SCO's false claims. I
don't think SCO anticipated having their Press Release Machine effectively
countered by the community as a whole.
Note to SCO: we're going to beat your bluster and FUD by facts and evidence.
---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IT Vibe - Authored by: ram on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:50 AM EST
- IT Vibe - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST
- The Chorus - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: senectus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST |
so What is left that the OSS community cares to hear from SCO?
If they now admit that SCO code is not in LINUX then do we no longer have
anything to worry about from them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST |
| This article at
The Register compares the stock rise
of SCOG against Linux vendors.
Interesting and
intriguing.
---
Recursion: n. See Recursion
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: waldotim on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:58 AM EST |
Has anyone challenged them on that one? Someone really should; it really made my
blood boil. I'd do it, but I'm sure I'd have a hard time being polite, and I
don't want my infamous Irish temper to reflect badly on PJ or Linux in general.
Any takers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:13 AM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:15 AM EST
- Me! - Authored by: aug24 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:31 AM EST
- Me too! - Authored by: tintak on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:50 AM EST
- Me too! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST
- Me too - Authored by: cybervegan on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST
- BBC article spawns Blog. - Authored by: sjgibbs on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:56 AM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: tintak on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: mossc on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: pooky on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:23 PM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:22 PM EST
- What about the BBC article? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:01 AM EST |
Cool!
I was wondering about the alternate reality thing.
Nice to know there's a correction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:02 AM EST |
It just occurred to me that the possibility is there that the SCO Group wants to
add the copyrights violation allegations so that they can add $2 bil to the $3
bil in damages they are already demanding in an effort either to push their
stock price upward or to keep their stock price up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sculdoon on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:02 AM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/35411.html
and
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14031[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:20 AM EST |
I find it very interesting that newSCO can't stop talking about the case, as its
their only business strategy, and I dont think IBM has ever mentioned it on
"http://www.ibm.com/news/us/".
newSCO, the mouse that roared, will be a footnote perhaps just the "flea
that farted". :)
ls[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:29 AM EST |
Even though they do not correct the article they know for certain that there is
a much more informed and critical readership which will, at least in some cases,
force them to be more balanced and accurate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:01 AM EST |
I wonder if it would be enlightening to keep track of SCO Boasts as they are
burst.
I think the should be called the 'Darling McPride' list, in honour of where many
of the posts would come from.
Are there any boasts to Trade Secrets people can dredge up???
LS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:16 AM EST |
How's this for ironic: I just tried to go to the Investor Relations page at
ir.sco.com to see if anything had appeared there about Friday's hearing, and I
received about a dozen error dialogs from Mozilla, each one
saying
www.thescogroup.com has sent an incorrect or unexpected
message. Error code: -12281
An "incorrect or unexpected message"?
From SCO? Awwww, c'mon!
(FWIW, I did finally get the page,
nothing there about Friday. No story, no spin, nothing.)
---
"When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
at
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2004/02/09/cx_el_0209eyeonstocks.html?partner=yaho
o&referrer=
More poor journalism from Forbes. Highlights
>SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM breached trade secrets by using
>parts of the Unix operating system
I guess forbes didn't have a reporter on the ground in Utah, didn't they hear
that trade secrets were dropped? Bad enough they don't mention the dropping
like others, but they still have it as part of the case!
> in software that eventually wound up in Linux
Allegedly guys! allegedly! thats why there is a court case!
>U.S. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells in Salt Lake City is
>expected to rule within a week whether SCO will be allowed
>to add the new claims
She is likely to rule regarding SCO's continued failure to comply with a court
order, which you guys didn't even mention.
Send well thought out corrections here:
http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/forbes/displayArticleWebForm.cgi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Forbes Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- Forbes Again - Authored by: pooky on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Forbes Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST
- Forbes Again - Authored by: xtifr on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST |
SCO having dropped the IP claim, then making the copyright one; will impact
their case, and doing, will show the SCO claim shell-game.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
The SCOundrels have company in their pursuit of riches based on suing other
companies for violating their IP.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040206/flf003_1.html
is a link to an article on Patriot Scientific Corp who have
"filed complaints against Matsushita, Sony, Fujitsu, Toshiba and NEC
seeking damages in excess of several hundred million dollars."
basically claiming
"Patriot Scientific's patents describe the principal means used by the
microprocessor industry to increase the internal operating speed of modern
microprocessors."
Meanwhile
"Intel Corp. is seeking a declaration that it is not infringing Patriot
Scientific's microprocessor clocking patent and is seeking a court order
stopping Patriot from suing the balance of Intel's customers."
I have no idea of the validity of Patriot's claims, but their approach seems
awfully familiar...wait, maybe SCO can sue them for stealing their business
model.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lnx4me on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:25 AM EST |
I read a Forbes blurb about the hearing Friday (Yahoo Finance, I'll save you the
time and aggravation and not post a link) in which the author said the Judge
would issue a ruling this week on whether or not to accept SCO's request to add
new claims.
Question: What is the domain of rulings available to the
Judge? And if someone cares to make an educated guess, what is the liklihood of
each occurring? Which are not mutually exclusive - obviously tossing out the
case trumps all others but then that may (1) not be possible and (2) me highly
unlikely if possible. A tabular format would be nice.
Just trying to
make sense out of all of this...
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST |
There is some good reporting out there. You just have to know where to go to
get a reliable report. The 2/7 article from The Register
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/35411.html) is right on target.
J.B.
A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight train, but if he has
a university education he may steal the whole railroad - Franklin Roosevelt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: meat straw on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:35 AM EST |
| An amusing look at some of the more idiotic instances when business intelligence
fails, including our favorite, Darl . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pscottdv on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST |
I see a lot of frustration on this board over the fact that reporters are
giving a lot of favor to SCO. I think everyone here should understand that
reporters are naturally going to like SCO over IBM with respect to this case.
Reporters like SCO because SCO talks to them about the case. They don't like
IBM because IBM does not.
The job of a reporter is made very difficult
if people won't talk to them and is made very easy if people will. They, like
you, like people who make their jobs easier. They even want to do them a favor
by making sure that their viewpoint is fairly represented.
The solution
to this problem, since IBM is far too smart to start talking to reporters about
this case, is to give the reporters someone else to talk to. Part of the genius
of Groklaw is that it give reporters that someone.
Thus, when you read
something slanted towards SCO in the news, do not let your blood boil and do not
get angry with the writer of the article. Take it as a failing on our part for
not yet getting out the word that there is somewhere they can go to get the
other side of the story. And before you argue that they all should know by now,
remember that most reporters are not geeks and the SCO thing really isn't very
big news to people who have the whole world to report on. Therefore, we must
hold their hands and show them the path of enlightenment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Grokker on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST |
| Check it out:
Dilbert
Grokker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who's on first?!? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:47 AM EST |
has SCO really given up on the trade secrets
complaint. See Paragraph 184 of amended complaint:
184. In furtherance of its scheme of unfair competition,
IBM has engaged in the following conduct:
a) Misappropriation of source code, methods, trade
secrets and confidential information of plaintiff;
this is now under a complaint of "unfair comp."
How does that change things re trade secret law? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST |
Any chance of these exhibits?
Exhibit 1: SCO Revised Supplemental Response to IBM's First and Second
Interrogatories
Exhibit 2: IBM letter of January 30, 2004
Exhibit 3: SCO letter of February 4, 2004
Exhibit 4: List of files IBM thinks SCO identified in its revised response
Exhibit 5: Rough draft of portion of transcript from Darl McBride's Harvard
Speech[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JScarry on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST |
| The Crimson had an error-filled piece on Darl's talk. They did manage to
correct one bit after my letter.
Correction
They still
missed the distinction between copyright/contracts in the case and
the source
of MyDoom. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: meat straw on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
| I sent email to the staff and editor pointing out some apparent biasm in several
articles pertaining to SCOG's
public vs. court statements, and in particular the MyDoom.A being a spammer
construct. I also pointed out that several months ago, a Wired staff writer
mentions Groklaw as an excellent resource for the coverage of SCOG news. I guess
not all thier writers are on the same page. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=53439
Gregory Blepp, Vice President SCOsource, told us: 'The trade secret claim was an
initial option, however, based on evidence and the ways in which the case has
developed it has become a clear copyright violation. The US Supreme Court states
that whenever a licence is used, for which the party is no longer under
contract, it is considered a copyright violation.'
P.S.
I was under the impression that Chris Sontag was "Vice President
SCOsource". Is there more than one? Has there been a change? Did I get it
wrong?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Does anyone know how the Judge is (likely) going to reveal her decision this
week?
Would something like this be released to the public as a
statement, or sent by letter to the two parties, or verbally read aloud in a
court session, posted on the court web site, dropped in leaflets over
metropolitan areas, painted on a hillside......or what? How will we know when
the judge has ruled and in what form will it likely take?
I only ask
because I am curious and terribly impatient. All of the speculation is
interesting, but I thought this might be something someone might have a solid
answer for.
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST |
IMHO think it would be a pity for the OSS community to walk out of the game
at half time because it looks like their team has 'the clinch'. IBM needs the
type of support this community is capable of and more importantly, it needs it
to follow through the case. I feel a renewed interest in IBM because of their
openness in their hardware (remember open architecture) and now their software.
We need them as much as they need us. Would a lesser company even be in business
still after the SCO attack? It's a great fight so far, stay and watch Darl hit
the mat, I'll buy ya a dog and a coke.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST |
The way I see this, they are very likely to change the name of the
company again when this is all over (no matter what the outcome) because of
their negative image.
So, any guesses what the new name & motto
might be?
SCO:"The Official Lawn-Ornament of the
International Business Machines Corporation."
OCS:"That's 'SCO'
Spelled Backwards."
CRATER:"Making Enron Look More Brilliant
Every Day."
Boies, Heise & McBride: "Defense Attorneys at
Large."
SCO: "The Owner of A Unix Operating
System."
Recite:"An Armonk, NY Based Clearinghouse of Used
Office Furniture and Equipment."
Just something to pass the
time... :)
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jog on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST |
| jog [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: beast on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:03 PM EST |
SCOG 8-K
---
Delay is the deadliest form
of denial. - J. Northcote Parkinson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jobsagoodun on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST |
Hi
Theres a new 8k being discussed over on Yahoo.
here it is!
jobsagoodun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:27 PM EST |
just a linux lurker, but to add to the point of MyDoom. the sky wasn't falling
YET. MyDoom C has been reported
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3310281 hope this hypers,
it's rather interesting maybe the next target is ford.com? you decide.
it's not just a matter of windose or linux, it's a matter of securing all of it,
and you can not legislate to protect fools
from their-selves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST |
| I like this article at NewsForge about the media's generally lousy coverage of
MyDoom.
Linux Renegades
My favorite quote:
MyDoom is
supposed to be a plot to hurt SCO. But how is it hurting SCO? Nobody is buying
their so-called Linux licenses, and they seem to have abandoned their
traditional operating system and support business in favor of full-time
litigation, so it's not as if keeping people away from SCO's Web site is costing
the company any money.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
If we all start chanting: "We want the transcript!" Will it show up
any sooner?
The Flatlander[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:19 PM EST |
After reading this article and the previous article of counterclaims AND with
all SCO denials of what seems to be considered common public knowledge, I would
recommend not only a dose of truth serum for SCO but what my grandmother
prescribed for someone who is full of **** -- A HEALTHY DOSE OF CASTOR OIL!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:21 PM EST |
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17602632
Both sides believe the other side still owes them information, says Brent Hatch,
a partner with Hatch, James & Dodge LLP, one of the firms representing SCO
Group. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Brent Hatch in the press - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST
- But . . . - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:19 PM EST |
If you go to the bottom of this article and click
'respond to article' the E-mail address it gives you
to respond to is that of svarghese (Sam Varghese).
Sam Varghese has a reputation of being in touch with
and sensitive to the issues of the Linux community.
He is even involved with the local Linux User group,
and reads and contributes to their mailing lists.
Well done Sam. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:39 PM EST |
There is some more !
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html
enjoy
Mark.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:51 PM EST |
They have about 9 days left to make good on a claim, voiced by Boies himself in
Nov. 18 teleconference, that they were going to sue a major Linux end user.
What ever happened to this? Or was it just another very specific, but
ultimately idle threat?
The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would
sue a major user of Linux within 90 days, as the company prepared to launch a
new legal assault in its claims that the open-source operating system contains
the computer maker's copyrighted code.
The Lindon, Utah, company, which has a
$3 billion lawsuit pending against IBM, told reporters and analysts in a
teleconference that it would begin suing companies that use Linux, but refuse to
pay licensing fees to SCO.
"One of things that we will be looking to do is
to identify a defendant that we believe will illustrate the nature of the
problem," David Boies, managing partner of SCO's law firm Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, said. "I don't want to try and identify that defendant on this
call, for obvious reasons . . . but you will be seeing the identification of a
significant user that has not paid license fees and is in fact using proprietary
and copyrighted material. I think you'll certainly be seeing that within the
next 90 days.”
http://www.techweb.com
/wire/story/TWB20031118S0003[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14018
"Don't be a sheep or you might end up with a six-figure analyst job, and
how would you face your family then? Looking at the track record of these
people, puppy-strangler might be an easier job to explain to Grandma over
Christmas dinner"
So Funny...
So True...
:-)
---
"Unless stopped I believe they will walk away from the rotten, decaying corpse
that is SCOG a lot richer" :-(
Stopped it is then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:20 PM EST |
Basically, it sounds to me like the Gartner report is based on their theories
about Longhorn: a) it will be out before the end of 2005 (a dubious assumption
to start with), and b) it will be everything MS claims (no comment). But by
casting it in vague, unspecific terms, i.e. by not just coming out and saying,
"we think Longhorn will be great", they gain some wiggle room and
plausible deniability (handy things for self-proclaimed "industry
analysts").
One thing they don't mention: even if some MS systems achieve
"average" quality, most of the below-average systems will probably
continue to be (older) MS systems too. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:25 PM EST |
| The Australian company `CyberKnights' a linux consultant, continues to demand
that SCO publicly retract its claim to have IP rights to linux by Feb 13, and
now threatens that if this does not happen it will charge SCO with fraud.
Article in
the sydney
morning herald.
"The heart of the matter is that The SCO Group
Australia and New Zealand (hereinafter TSG-ANZ) has widely published claims to
"intellectual property" in Linux, and claims that users of Linux are required to
purchase a licence from TSG-ANZ in the amount of AUD$999.00 for each
single-CPU server running Linux," today's communication said.
"Take notice
that such claims are fraudulent, and unless they are retracted as publicly as
they were made, CyberKnights Pty Ltd (hereinafter CK) will vigorously pursue a
conviction of fraud against TSG-ANZ," it said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
