|
|
| Response to The Register |
 |
|
Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:14 PM EDT
|
I am getting so much email about The Register's article about Project Monterey, I will put my response here, for economy's sake.
Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired. However, in this case, he didn't understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found of Project Monterey being intended from the beginning to be used on POWER matters. It matters because SCO's proposed 3rd amended complaint apparently is claiming that IBM had no right to use the Project Monterey product on POWER and only did so after Project Monterey was killed.
If you followed the April 21st hearing, you will note that IBM's attorneys used similar evidence to argue that SCO knew about IBM's use on POWER for years [transcripts here, and note in particular Part 3, PDF, beginnning on page 2.]. In the law, there is something called waiver and estoppel, and basically if you know about a breach (if it even was one) and do nothing about it for years, you are estopped (meaning blocked) from complaining later. It's an equity, or fairness, issue. If you click on the Law.com Dictionary links, you can read up on all three words. Because of my paralegal background, I was sure the evidence Groklaw was turning up mattered legally, because of waiver and estoppel issues. The fact that IBM made that exact argument at the hearing and offered such evidence to support their argument confirms my assessment.
Groklaw covers the news from a legal viewpoint, not a market angle, and it can make a very big difference in how facts fit into a context. I see I should have explained all that more clearly, and I'll surely be more alert in the future, to make sure those with no legal background or training can follow along.
UPDATE: The story is on IT Manager's Journal now too. And here's an article by Orlowski in 2001, with Caldera saying that Linux would outstrip Unix in five years. More evidence that everyone knew by at least 1999.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: heretic on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Nice explanation for us that are somewhat legally challenged
;-)
heretic[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
What of the charge that PJ has retroactively modified comments on this topic?
According to Orlowski, " [We now understand this series, after some input
from your reporter, has been amended.]"
Have any changes in fact been made? If so, it would be good to know what those
might be.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pytek on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
| Her
e is a link to the article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ben Hildred on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
I realy should post this anonymously
---
It's not chicken soup for the soul; it's more like peanut butter for the mind.
-- The Famous Brett Watson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections Here - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- missing tags - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Ben Hildred on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
Such that they be
---
It's not chicken soup for the soul; it's more like peanut butter for the mind.
-- The Famous Brett Watson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
I've read it a couple of times and sometimes I flipped back
and forth between pages because it seemed something was
missing.
The article makes some startling claims, states some facts
with a weird spin to them and then just kind of ends. If
someone could provide a simple outline of his argument, I
would really appreciate it. Thanks.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
The Register article does not make clear that the company they refer to as
SCO, is not the current SCO. I have a product of the current SCO; Caldera Linux
network; that I liberated out of a scrap bin.
Also, about that time,
(1993-1999), there were loads of companies offering various UNIX systems; all
claiming SVR4. I worked on a few of them, but if you needed a good system, the
choice was either DEC OSF or Solaris; and the company that I worked for started
purchasing DEC Alphas about 1996.
We had also purchased a UNIX clone;
that it still in use on the telephone system. This was not x86; and was yet
another system written by a student. I just wish that I had kept my old
magazines, floppies, and CDs. UNIX was not regarded as a system; but as a
description of how that system interfaces with the outside.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
| It's sad that Andrew Orlowski didn't feel he needed to introduce his argument
here where any misunderstanding could be revealed before going on to publish in
"mainstream" sites.
I guess that blogs present reporters with a real
problem. They can be a source of useful background, but can also be a source of
a lot of misunderstanding. Here, we often write in a shorthand or jargon that
is not obviously clear to a newcomer. We presume that most readers have at least
a basic understanding of the actual matters before the court because it is what
we discuss every day.
This problem will occur more often as the case finally
crawls to the doors of a court. More and more mainstream reporters will be
asked to write quick and dirty articles about SCO v. IBM (there I go, using SCO
as shorthand for The SCO Group) Inevitably they will start by googling SCO and
IBM and what turns up? SCOs web site and then Groklaw. Will they go on to
discover Erics OSI position paper? IWeThey?
Will they have the time or the
inclination to read the carefully prepared Groklaw timelines or the legal
papers. Under time pressures it is a lot simpler just to phone Darl and get a
quote (I assume IBM will continue their stoney silence.)
We should be very
glad that there are reporters like Bob Mims who have taken the time to
understand the positions of all parties plus has continuing contacts within TSG
(sorry more shorthand there) which gives us at least a glimpse at the World
According To Darl.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
Andrew says..
"Groklaw makes some odd claims, including the emphatic
"discovery" that Monterey was intended to run on IBM's POWER RISC
processor. But this was never a secret - it was one of the project's initial
goals, and widely publicized."
It appears he agrees with the view that PowerPC was always in the picture..
He only challenges that Linux was the goal "all along".. I can live
with that. It still wipes out SCOs' case.
My comment: The article is written as if he has an axe to grind..(could it be
the 'legitimate journalist vs the BLOGGER (;-)). If you read around that (we
should be good at that by now! (;-)), the article actually bolsters IBMs' side,
not SCOs'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
To be fair, after O'Gara and Didio and Enderlee, I thought The Register's
article wasn't too bad in a "Devil's Advocate" kind of way.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
is that the register article's main purpose was to point out how groklaw was
trying to twist the facts, revise history, and as proof tried to point out
inaccuracies in groklaw's reporting.
Unfortunately, his attempt at creating clarity by pointing out groklaw's errors
introduced more inacuracies.
It's like being back in school, you've written the best essay ever, only to get
it back full of red ink, because you have a dyslexic teacher.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No no no - Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Yes Yes Yes - Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Yes Yes Yes - Authored by: Samari711 on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- Bananas - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 11:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
| Caldera Extends
64-Bit Product Line
Caldera Previews 64-bit Linux for Intel Itanium
Processors
OpenLinux Server 64 to Supplement AIX 5L [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tichael on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
I have read the article a couple of times myself. The article still doesn't make
sense. What is he trying to say? Is he saying that the facts that are being
presented (i.e. links to news articles) aren't facts?
I'm confused.
--Tichael[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: micheal on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
| The Register article was mentioned in the previous article "Microsoft -- Can We
Talk?". My comment is more appropriate here.
When PJ writes an article I
often read the linked references and have not found anything really at odds with
what PJ wrote.
However, in the Register article there is this statement (my
emphasis).
"The most damning evidence offered in the
Monterey Mystery is an IBM marketing document which can be found here, at
DataTrends Inc., an IBM consultancy."
where "here" is a link
to the Register article.
RegisterArtic
le
The paragraph (in the above link) at the end of page 2 and beginning
of page 3 makes it clear that customers were expected to shift to Linux and that
AIX/Monterey technology would be contributed to Linux. (My
emphasis).
"We will build strong Linux compatibility in
AIX/Monterey to help make the deployment of Linux applications on future
releases of Linux. Application portability is expected to precede the matuartion
of Linux, providing the foundatuion for customers to make this shift smotthly,
In addition, we will collaborate with the open source community to contribute
AIX/Monterey technology to Linux in an effort to help build a better Linux."
His most damning reference seems to contradict what he
has to say.
---
LeRoy
If I have anything to give, made of this life I live, it is this song, which I
have made. Now in your keeping it is laid.
Anon [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
This is the second recent Internet article that raises serious alarm bells.
This is more than the past sloppy, rabble rousing reporters (that Groklaw
skewers) praising McBride and TSCOG while vilifying IBM.
There is advanced disinformation going on. In this article, the writer knows
that most readers only read the first two or three paragraphs. His article is
very different than his beginning paragraphs, with disconnects in the
article. He makes bold statements with no supporting facts, with the
assumption that he is all knowing but his victim is misinformed. Etc.
Some well organized and funded PR is a foot to rewrite History before the
TSCOG case reaches a jury. For instance, IA64 was optimized for a single
process with a single thread (yep, Microsoft OSs) rather than a modern
operating system with multithreaded applications, like UNIX derivatives.
IA64 speculative execution is merely a Microsoft tax on users. To everyone's
credit, the industry has moved on to multiple cores leaving Microsoft OSs
holding the bag. This is the root cause for the recent HW shifts.
The writer gets a /. -5 for bad disinformation and supercilious style. The
TCOG "A" team just might be involved, or not. Please remember the
truth does not point fingers or need to rant, but TSCOG does. : )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Be Careful PJ! - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Be Careful PJ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: vruz on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
I'm a regular reader of The Register, but as a reader (and sometimes a humble
collaborator) of Groklaw, I found their article rather insulting.
I can understand why El Reg needs controversy to sex-up their news, and of
course, being a news website that prides itself of being independent it's fair
to be teased and sarcastically criticsized just like Microsoft or other regular
targets of El Reg can be.
What is not fair is being so harshly accused of low quality work standards, when
evidence presented in court is consistent with everything that has been said and
researched in Groklaw so far.
I am left with the unpleasant impression that mocking 5 million Groklaw readers
can generate a bulk of controversy good enough to help El Reg with a fair number
of 'Ads by Gooooooooooooooooogle' views. (on the right side of a website that
bites the hand that feeds IT near you)
This article in particular was telling gratuitous FUD and nothing but the FUD,
your honour. (gratis as in cheap beer)
Under this magnifier, El Reg (or at least this particular journalist) don't seem
to be all too different from other traditional news media.
But hey, El Reg is cool, isn't it ? for now I still prefer driving some
pageviews to The Register instead of say... Forbes.
Who works for the FUD machine now, Andrew Orlowski ?
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
| The Register's objective with the article (as I understood it) was to highlight
the fact that from a PR/communications perspective MISTAKES/FACTUAL INACCURACIES
on Groklaw provides SCO with the opportunity to TRY and discredit the site (this
basically means that Groklaw's LEGAL value will also be damaged). From TR
"Pamela Jones has run a series of articles which could offer SCO some elusive
ammunition to discredit the site" and also "it provides SCO with valuable
public relations ammunition"
Whether you evaluate something from a LEGAL
or MARKET angle really doesn't matter, since BOTH angles rely on the ACCURACY of
information.
In simple terms: If claims are inaccurate you destroy the
credibility BOTH legally and PR-wise (consumer-wise...whatever you want to call
it) of the site/network on which you make those claims.
I don't know PJ (or
Andrew Orlowski for that matter), but is this fair? PJ (Groklaw): "he didn't
understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found of Project Monterey being
intended from the beginning to be used on POWER matters" If he didn't understand
it then he wouldn't have written his article in the first place...
"Legal
evidence" has no substance as long as it is inaccurate. If I follow correctly he
said that the "evidence Groklaw found" was either 1. NOT as new as being claimed
(eg. common knowledge) 2. inaccurate in certain areas.
Why can't Groklaw
just:
1. Evaluate the ACCURACY of The Register's article
2. This will in
turn validate the accuracy of the relevant Groklaw statements
(instead of
going off on a tangent and saying the journalist got lost in a quagmire of legal
vs. market angles - which is pure nonsense)
Accuracy breeds TRUST,
mistakes breed contempt. That pretty much sums up the article... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eckenheimer on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
Reads like it was written at 3am after a long night of partying or something...
---
In a world without walls or fences, who needs windows or gates?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
| The saga illustrates one of the perils of online forums, the "echo
chamber" effect. Many participants join a forum to have beliefs re-affirmed, and
context is often a casualty.
This should really read "Groklaw can never
replace my on-line journalism."
Not only do we have a problem with
proprietary software.. we have a problem with proprietary journalism.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
| It's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it
provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition.
Oh yeaah.. we
helped SCO alright. Look at their stock price. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
His argument is a red herring. As if one "possibly" bad conclusion or
fact on Growlaw will give any traction (or merit) to SCO's complaint in the
public or the courtroom.
He still hasn't given us any evidence that IBM didn't see Linux as a successor
to Unix, or at least to AIX, before entering into Project Monterey. Unless you
think the absense of public statement confirming such as evidence.
Ad Ignorantium[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hawk on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
OK, the following made a spark:
From a Google search for
"Project Monterey" the top six results are either the Groklaw articles, or
articles about them.
Anyone can confirm this is true. Although
I did not think about this before, was Google et. al. not supposed to leave
Groklaw alone?
Just a thought.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
He is the most likely to cover FOSS and Linux for the Register. I read it
often, but I have found is articles sloppy on research - (calling Gentoo a
french Linux distribution) and some with a slant or attitude that was kind of
misplaced or lacked objectivism(its either fanboy and sarcastic).
I don't think it is a big deal how he wrote it. I think he doesn't means
anything by how harsh he comes off, or at least he is that way most of the time
for no reason.
He isn't my favorite at the register by a long shot and really doesn't mix well
with the humour/ribbing slant most others there write.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
If (that's a pretty big "if") I understand the Register article, the
main substantive point (discarding the overblown "this may be good fodder
for SCO PR" stuff and some mostly-justified observations about the
"echo chamber" effect among Groklaw's general membership [and blogs in
general] which have little or no bearing on the accuracy of PJ's reporting)
seems to be that all the memos and press releases PJ has dredged up fall short
of actually proving some important points about whether SCO *management*
actually knew what IBM was up to with Monterey on Power. In a sentence, just
because IBM was bragging about it doesn't mean SCO knew about it.
PJ probably knows more abut laches than I do, so I trust that she's thought of
A.O.'s argument already. I'm quite unclear about the concept of imputing
knowledge to corporations, but I imagine that A.O. is right when he implies that
a statement from one engineer wouldn't suffice to establish "corporate
knowledge". Likewise, a press release written by IBM, even one with the
SCO logo stuck on, doesn't prove much.
My response: so what? As my Evidence professor loved to say, "a brick
is not a wall." Evidence is like bricks, pile up enough of them and you've
got a pretty solid argument. That's what PJ has been doing. Finding one press
release by IBM won't win a case (though it sure as hell gives IBM's lawyers some
hints about what questions to ask), but PJ and her contributing readers have
been cementing on brick after brick, to the point that it's increasingly clear
that the laches argument is a good one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
In the law, there is something called waiver and estoppel, and basically if
you know about a breach (if it even was one) and do nothing about it for years,
you are estopped (meaning blocked) from complaining later.
My
question is this:
If it is claimed that open source is using a companies
patented methods even though the patents are obvious, trivial and have prior art
etc. How then can the OSS developers or distributors (or whoever) be sued later
on if it is obvious that the patent is being infringed right now. Won't issues
of estoppel arise for the suing company.
I am thinking that MS is filing all
these patents etc. to fight open source and other competitors but thay aren't
taking anyone to court (yet). Don't they have an obligation to take action as
soon as they find what they consider an infringement or forever hold their
peace.
Sorry for the poorly worded question, it's early morning and the
coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
Rob Sixpack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- O/T estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- O/T estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:55 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Sorry, IANL, but with the way you have explained this I cannot understand how
companies can have patents for years without complaining suddenly can start
demanding fees or court. Surely this applies here or am I totally barking up the
wrong tree or just plain barking.
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- estoppel - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- estoppel - Authored by: Darkside on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 11:04 AM EDT
- estoppel - Authored by: Samari711 on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired. However,
in this case, he didn't understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found
of Project Monterey being intended from the beginning to be used on POWER
matters"
Only someone who didn't follow the SCOG litigation would not
understand why the groklaw research is relevant, especially since SCOG was
trying amend its complaint by adding the charge that both PJ and IBM punctured.
You screwed it, Andrew![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: producer on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
It's obvious that AO, like so many "professionals", just can't abide
by the fact that someone who does what they do, out of a true desire and not a
check, does it so much better than themselves.
In short: Andy is jealous. So much so that it's showing
It may be that he is suffering from the MOG syndrome of "I hate that 'rank
amateur' PJ so much, almost as much as I envy her ability, integrity and
readership, that I can no longer see straight.
Or it could be that he's just being willfully obtuse and needs the hits. A few
players on the net have caught on that criticizing Groklaw can mean big, or
bigger, business. And it's going to get worse.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: globularity on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
The register article while supporting IBM's claims in a very obfuscated manner
made a comment about there being a big difference between an application
development platform and an application deployment platform, true. In my field
of embedded software the development platform is rarely the "deployment
platform".
The only problem is that I have never come across term "application
deployment platform" and in the field of computer applications it is usual
to deploy on the same architecture as which development takes place. I would
venture the opinion the IBM used the term "application develoment
platform" to mean that the applications were targeted at that platform not
just developed on it.
Now it gets vague it is possible to develop applications targeted at linux but
deployed on Monteray.
My A$0.02
Mark
---
"It's all about myths and conceptions" I think that is what Darl meant to say.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kb8rln on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
We understand that the stories have already been modified to reflect
input from outside the Groklaw forum itself - some of the phrases we quote have
already disappeared - and a further article explaining the saga will
follow.
Ok let me get this right. Is he talking about posts or
article? Look like he talking about posters that are Anonymous? This can be
anyone even SCO. I do not get them too much salt. PJ even said this back too
this post
saying that she update
here aricle to more clearly define PJ point. Maybe it would be nice on Groklaw
when PJ changes anything is that there could be a change control log that could
be look at. So the whole process is open with nothing to
hide.
---
Director Of Infrastructure Technology (DOIT)
Really this is my Title so I not a Lawyer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
| In June 1998 Intel announced that the Merced Itanium chip would be delayed until
mid 2000. In October 1998 IBM announced its participation in Monterey. By June
1999, however, there were rumors that
Merced would be further delayed and would have performance problems that would
make most customers wait for the McKinley Itanium chip in late 2001.
Around
this time IBM decided it needed to hedge its bet on Monterey. Linux was
increasing in popularity, so it wanted a foot in that camp. At the same time,
the rationale for a big marketing push behind the Itanium version of Monterey
was seriously compromised if the first competitive Itanium workstations wouldn't
be rolled out until 2002. Since IBM was a major Intel customer, they obviously
knew a great deal about Itanium's performance and prospects.
In August 1999
there were rumors that IBM
was joining the Trillian 64 bit Linux project and by September 1999 IBM was fending of speculation that
this conflicted with Monterey.
Its pretty clear from this what happened. The
decision to join Trillium was independent of the decision not to market the
Itanium version of Monterey. Since IBM was committed to Monterey on the Power
architecture, it would have only required the incremental cost of sales and
marketing to support the Itanium version.
Unfortunately the sales of
Itanium were so dreadful, that if all the first year workstation sales by all
vendors combined had been profit to IBM, it still wouldn't have paid the
interest on the money IBM had planned for the Itanium Monterey launch. So post
facto, IBM was completely justified in not supporting the Itanium.
It should
be noted that IBM didn't switch the marketing budget to supporting Linux on the
Itanium. They gave up on the Itanium. They maintained their commitment to
Monterey on the Power PC and still do.
Moreover Caldera was planning to sell
Itanium Monterey as late as June 2001, 2 months after the close of the
Caldera-Santa Cruz deal. They gave up on it not because IBM wouldn't market and
sell it, but because there weren't enough Itanium systems being sold to be a
viable market, even without the competition of Linux and Windows NT on the
platform.
It all seems simple enough, other than exactly what happened
between Caldera and IBM in the spring of 2001. What compensation did IBM offer,
and why did Caldera refuse it? If this was in order to preserve the possibility
of a lawsuit, what does this say about Darl's contention that the idea didn't
come up until almost 2 years later?
Inquiring minds want to
know.
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
This is an interesting article about how PR firms go about
manipulating the truth, facts and figures published by
journalists.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I think this goes on on a much larger scale than we
suppose. Here are my views which I posted on Linuxtoday.
----------------------------------------------------
This is very illuminating. Disturbingly, I have also
noticed a similar planting of articles or information
which are deliberately misleading by careful omission in
various news reports from the likes of CNN, ABC, BBC and
various newspapers.
I have noticed that even news agencies like Reuters, AFP
and AP who pride themselves on being objective, a few
articles of this type appear from time to time, although
in these cases it seems to be a case of the journalist
leaving out things that don't appear in all sources, for
fear of putting in something that is controversial or not
completely agreed on. This is what gives the PR shills
their power, because if the journalist is not an expert on
what he is writing about, the he/she publishes what is
safest - the lowest common denominator from several
articles, which has the effect of excluding exactly the
information the PR firm wants excluded in order to mislead
the public.
This tactic has also been even more effectively used by
some nasty regimes around the world to suppress objections
to human rights abuse and free reporting even in countries
with a free press. What they do is suppress free reporting
in their own countries by imposing strict press
censorship, and prevent foreign reporters and local
independent reporters from reporting from the country or
area of the country where the events being reported are
happening. Therefore the only news that is available
officially to the international press is censored articles
from stage managed government controlled "reporters" and
"news agencies". Even if other news leaks out to the
international press, the journalist's fear of publishing
something controversial especially when it can't be
verified independently (because of restrictions on
journalists), ensures that only the censored news (the
lowest common denominator) gets out. This effectively
gives some nasty foreign governments the ability to censor
the news that we read despite the fact that we are
supposed to have a free press. In effect when other
countries apply censorship they are also infringing on our
rights to free speech and freedom of information since
speech and information are now global commodities.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 05:23 AM EDT |
> Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired.
Really?
I can't deny that Orlowski is a competent writer, but, as a journalist, I have
long considered Orlowski to be a troll. He regularly writes sensationalist
hit-baiting articles, with little regard for objectivity.
Hence, unlike you, I am not in the least surprised by this current article of
his.
It also seems to me that too many of Orlowski's articles have tended to support
various Microsoft FUD positions, whether it was denigrating Google, throwing
gasoline on the XFree86 licensing controversy, or spreading the meme that Sun is
now a Microsoft pawn.
It's not enough to prove to me that Orlowski is an astroturfer, but, as I said,
I definitely classify him as a troll.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
"What took you so long?"
To me, this is pretty much the central
question the SCO Group has to answer. After all, it took them more than two
years to file a complaint.
To me, pretty much the only answer would be:
"We are a Unix-only company and never had anything to do with Linux. We recently
discovered Linux was more than just a plaything, researched and filed the
complaint without delay." This is how I read the SCO Group's
complaints.
Now to Monterey: As far as I recall Groklaw, the Register
and other sources, at least the IA64-Part of Project Monterey worked like
this:
- Intel was supposed to bring in the chip,
- Sequent had the
bleeding-edge technoligy,
- IBM had the deep pockets,
- Old SCO
had a loyal customer base and a large distribution channel. In other words, a
market.
With that in mind, one may ask a few
questions:
- Since SCO brought in the market, which technology of
theirs did IBM "steal"?
- Being active in the "Unix on Intel" market, how
could they fail to notice a new big competitor for years? After all, this was
their very core market. Besides, as mentioned in the "Reg article", old SCO
developed the "Linux Kernel Personality" back in 99. How can one develop a
compatibility layer for something unknown?
- With Monterey being designed
to run on POWER as well, how can they blame IBM for making Monterey run on
POWER?
- Why didn't they sue Intel? After all, a missing IA64 made a Unix
for IA64 quite useles.
I see one way for the SCO Group to
get at least something out: They must convince the court to give them a level of
control over the entire Unix business that from AT&T to old SCO none of
their predecessors in interest ever had.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
"He objected to my saying it was a stopgap."
If that is what he was objecting to, he should get a life. He should also be
specific about his accusations. He is attacking your good name and had better
be prepared to put up or shut up.
Anyway, the quoted statement is opinion not proven fact. And you were changing
your own words, not someone else's. If someone points something out to you, and
you change or clarify your opinion, that shows a reasonable mind at work, it's a
virtue not a vice. The guy owes you an apology.
The whole online journalism thing is very much a work in progress. As other
posters have pointed out, the software has limitations that have to be worked
around. I do think that some of those limitations need to be addressed. In
particular, it should be a requirement that ANY online content should be able to
be saved AS IT APPEARED when it was viewed. That should be the law. If someone
has made a statement that violates the law or creates a tort it is necessary to
be able to document that EXACTLY. I find it difficult to save some kinds of web
content because I am downloading some kind of script rather than the content
itself.
We also have the problem that the history of our age is being recorded on very
volitile media. There is the very real danger that thirtieth century historians
will know less about the twenty-first century than the seventeenth. This is
very important because people who want to do evil things often find it
convenient to erase history. The example that comes to mind is the ethnic
cleansing that took place in the former Yugoslavia. It wasn't enough just to
drive people out of an area. It was necessary to remove all traces that they
had ever been there. The ability to change the way history is recorded makes
'the big lie' possible. It is important that web content be archivable and that
changes in web content can be followed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
I'm still puzzled how any of this Monterey stuff can be considered
ammo for TSG to discredit Groklaw. The only way I see that
happening is through revisionist history attempts and I cannot see
that happening. Particularly when a lot of what PJ has posted and
commented about is a matter of public record.
---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
I work for a company that Orlowski used to skewer regularly.
His articles about that company were usually based on a little bit of
controversial public information. There was a legitimate controversy, but
Orlowski consistently went beyond describing the controversy and introduced his
own spin (for example, by making guesses as to the motives of the company,
guesses that were incendiary yet were backed by no evidence).
One or two articles, where he could raise his unsupported concerns, fine -- he's
a writer, and he can write opinion pieces if he wants to. But when he
discovered that he got lots of traffic, he kept writing similar pieces, with
little additional information, just repeating various motives that he guessed
about, all of them negative and false.
Orlowski may be a good person, I don't know. But in that episode he proved to
me that he was a poor journalist. He made up for his lack of research by
derogating the company that was his topic.
polymath[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RideTheCliche on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
I don't think he holds Bloggers in too-high a regard:
Andrew Orlowski is
a lousy blogger...
"Orlowski also complains about the poor quality
of information found in most weblogs, but he's got blinders on when he's looking
at his own columns and his home publication, since his own writing is full of
fantasies and misstatements. It's sometimes claimed that one of the big
differences between weblogs and "real" journalism is the absence of editors in
weblogs. Well, if there's an editor going over Andy's work, she should think
about another profession."
Andrew Orlowski is a weblogger...
"Now obviously I don't have any
interest in pointing out that Gibson specifically talks about starting up his
weblog again after writing the book, and that he's found substantial value in
it. There's no point in debating the finer points of journalism here, because
Andrew's piece actually has no journalism in it at all. At best he writes
Opinion editorials - writing that drips with his own personal (and I believe
ill-thought-through) opinions and vengeful grumpiness towards the weirdly
elitist, powerful, Google-manipulating (and yet trivial, impotent and babbling)
cabals of weblogging culture."
Orlowski on Berkman Center's Blog Embrace
Granted, sometimes we
suck. But do we suck more than a vacuum cleaner from Electrolux? I am told
nothing sucks like an Electrolux. Mr Andrew Orlowski of The Register is outraged
with the Berkman Center in general and the Berkman Center's embrace of blogging
specifically. It is hard to pick one singel quote from Mr Orlowski's amusing and
well-put rant, but here is one to give you an idea..."
Reg
ister Refutations...
A week or so ago I wrote a little post called Oh
Self-Correcting Blogosphere. It was about an article at The Register in which
Andrew Orlowski managed to mix a few half-facts with some general paranoia to
assemble the spectre of a censorious and manipulative cabal of either webloggers
or Google managers.
Fact of the matter is this is The Register we're
talking about here... A *Tabloid* comprised of half-knowledgable
wannabe-mainstream "Journalists" -- Interested in generating Page-Hits rather
than searching for The Truth. It's your call to decide who you want to lend
more credibility to.
RTC [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:26 AM EDT |
| H
ere is a sarcastic rebuttal from a LinuxToday reader
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
Thanks PJ for the most polite but devastating putdown I have seen in
years :)
PJ: “I see I should have explained all that more clearly,
and I'll surely be more alert in the future, to make sure those with no legal
background or training can follow along.”
I'm not sure what his
point was (If he had one) but I think the usually suspects will probably
suffice…
Lookup the word: Jealousy.. & pagehits
I go
to thereg for whistleblowers, scandal and knockabout IT fun!
I go to
groklaw for facts :)
P.S.
Don’t let the *bad people of dubious
parentage* grind you down ;)
---
"They [each] put in one
hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Atta girl PJ, now you have more people looking into this mess. No matter what
side of the field that they are on, mission accomplished!!!
wb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
"Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long
admired."
I was with you right up until this. Orlowksi is a link-whoring troll who lives
to stir up empty controversy with ill-researched rants for a little-regarded
site. The most objectionable thing about him is how he reserves the most bile
for the people on the same "side" as him (though, in truth, Orlowski
is on the side of Orlowski, and in particular, on the side of Orlowksi's ego) --
check out his ongoing smear campaign against Lessig for examples:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002451.shtml[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
What's really funny is that groklaw allows people to comment on the stories etc.
Even if they are opposed. So long as they do it in a respectfull and
non-antagonistic manner. el-reg which I am rethinking my reading of a bit does
not in any real fashion. Not even if you want to give them an
"attaboy". Even though I have had less and less desire to do so of
late for them.
Is groklaw an "echo chamber"? Perhaps. But no more than el-reg. If
anything Groklaw suffers less from this so called "echo chamber"
effect than el-reg does. How can anything really echo in a chamber with as many
baffles as all the comments hanging off every blog post on this site. The stuff
that does echo here usually does so because it is true and not just because PJ
said so. On the Register Mr. Orlowski can say what he wants and listen to it's
infinate echo as no one can directly point out that they might disagree. Or to
ask Mr. Orlowski just what he was trying to accomplish with such a
misleading/sensationalistic story. Thank you for your input or lack of it Mr.
Orlowski. I think I will stick with Groklaw for my facts on the case. And if I
want a little amusement or lite entertainment fluf I might visit el-reg. Bye bye
little vulture icon from my firefox bookmarks tool bar.
Neo Neko[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
Could I just ask a small question?
There appear to be plenty of remarks on this site (I haven't picked this topic
for any particular reason I might add) that are posted Anonymously.
Wouldn't it be a little easier to take credence from people who were willing to
stand by their remarks with something as inconsequential as an ID ?
(Yes, I am aware of the irony here, but I don't come here regularly and know
nothing about law, so there would be little point in my registering)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
