|
Miss Otis Regrets |
|
Friday, August 15 2003 @ 09:43 PM EDT
|
The SCOForum 2003 Sponsors page has been taken down. Instead you find:
"Document Not Found
"To find the document you're looking for, please see our company sitemap.
"If you're having problems with a broken link, send us your e-mail and we'll find the page for you. If the page is on the Linux Documentation Project site (http://www.sco.com/LDP/), email feedback@linuxdocs.org."
You certainly get ample chances to give SCO your email address. Linux gets special mention, I see. Maybe because so much of the pages on Linux have simply disappeared. There one day and then, no explanation, just poof. Desesperado.
There is a search engine on the page, so I typed in "Sponsors" and got a list of pages. Number four on the list took me to the old, now removed, page, where you can see who was on the list previously as Bronz and Silver sponsors. It has been reported that Intel was once on the list "by mistake" but I don't see it on this page. Perhaps the report was about a different, even earlier, page. Anyway, there was a flap about it, as you can read in the article.
HP is number one on the list on the removed page. They are certainly in an awkward position, thanks to SCO, but then, who isn't? It'll be interesting to see who actually shows up and who the actual sponsors turn out to be in the end. The article says there has been pressure from the IT world on HP to drop the sponsorship. That article says the pressure is falling on deaf ears, but the page came down, and it looks like it just happened today.
SCO's McBride in the recent teleconference said "the silent majority" in the IT world supports SCO and hopes they win. Maybe in an alternate universe, but back on this planet, in this galaxy, in our universe, SCO doesn't appear popular, judging from this SCOForum episode or the reaction already from the IT world to his remark, intense enough to warrant a second story by Computer World just about the reaction. The emails they received were not from lunatic fringe types, either, as you can see when you read them. Here's one, from the president of a consulting company:
"Joey Mele, president of JBT Production Services, a small consulting company in Las Vegas, wrote that McBride is off-base in claiming that the silent majority of the IT world is behind him. 'I just couldn't believe the guy could say something like that,' Mele said in an interview. 'It's so detached from reality.'"
It's sad when you see someone throw a party and people everywhere suddenly remember they have to wash their hair that day and can't make it. But when things like that happen to you, you just might take it as a clue as to how popular you actually are. Or are not.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 15 2003 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
They didn't delete this Linux page
http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux/
I don't know about LDP, but according to a post I read somewhere (yahoo?) some
guy who wrote one of the LDP documents, wrote to SCO, may be even a cease and
desist, because he thought they weren't using the document appropriately. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 15 2003 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
More news
http://linuxtoday.
com/infrastructure/2003081502526OPCY
http://linuxtoda
y.com/infrastructure/2003081502226NWCYLL quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 15 2003 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
From the first linuxtoday.com article that quartermass linked (Thanks,q!)
It is a game now of who can spin what information first. The SCO Group was even
so blatent to invite members of the media all expenses paid to their upcoming
SCOForum. I cannot speak directly for other media outlets, but I can tell you
that it would be a huge conflict of interest for journalists to accept room,
board, and airfare to Las Vegas to attend their conference.
#include <stdio.h>
main (){
printf ("Standard disclaimern");
printf ("not a lawyer, not a paralegal, just a codern");
} D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
"SCO's McBride in the recent teleconference said "the silent majority" in the IT
world supports SCO and hopes they win."
ROFLMAO iwaku[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
John, Why do you mention SGI in particular? I am mostly interested in your
reasoning.
About the cluelessness of SCO, read this (May 30) column: http://www.al
wayson-network.com/comments.php?id=514_0_3_0_C ;-) It still is very
relevant! MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
Choosing IBM as a target offered some advantages, depending on exactly what SCO
wanted to accomplish with its lawsuit.
- SCO's target selection was limited by who actively contributed code to Linux.
A company that sold Linux products but did not contribute significant code would
not be a viable target. IBM is almost certainly the heaviest Linux contributor
and promotor among SCO's licensees.
- To the extent that they might have been motivated by trying to get a
short-term boost in stock prices, a billion-dollar suit against IBM is a lot
more credible than a billion-dollar suit against a smaller and less financially
solid company like SGI would be.
- IBM's deep pockets would make a settlement short of winning a lawsuit
practical. IBM has more than enough wealth that they could buy SCO, buy SCO's
Unix rights, pay SCO to license the needed Unix code under the GPL, or do any of
a number of other things through which SCO could profit nicely from a
settlement. Which other potential target could afford to pay out big bucks to
get rid of a nuisance?
- IBM's big size helps SCO look more like David and less like Goliath than they
would otherwise. That is useful both for public relations and, potentially, for
selling a jury on the idea that they are the victims rather than the ones who
are mistreating others.
In hindsight, it currently looks as if SCO miscalculated seriously both in terms
of the strength of their own case and in terms of how willing IBM would be to
settle. But if they just looked closely enough to see the potential advantages
of choosing IBM as a target and didn't adequately consider the problems they
were getting into, it's not hard to see how choosing IBM as a target might have
made sense at the time. And even now, can we really rule out out the
possibility that IBM might pay SCO a little to go away if SCO brings their
demands down low enough? Nathan Barclay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 04:48 AM EDT |
John G,
Yes, that forum page you link is up, but the sponsers page is still "Document
not found". bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 05:29 AM EDT |
Sue SGI for a billion dollars for destroying the UNIX market. Sorry, I don't
think that would be credible. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
John, why I asked you about SGI: I traced the contributions that SCO was
mentioning to the organisations that contributed them to the Linux kernel.
Honorable mentions:
- SMP: Alan Cox "Thanks to Caldera", Linux 1.3.31, Oct 1995.
- RCU: IBM, Linux 2.5.43, Oct 2002.
- NUMA: SGI, Linux 2.3.30, Dec 1999.
- JFS: IBM, Linux 2.4.20, Nov 2002. patches were available earlier.
- ReiserFS: Reiser/Namesys, Linux 2.4.1, Jan 2001.
- ext3: Red Hat, Linux 2.4.17, Dec 2001. patches were available earlier.
- XFS: SGI, Linux 2.5.36, Sep 2002.
SCO is griping that "the offending code" is all through 2.4 and 2.5 and not
in 2.2. This leaves us with NUMA and ReiserFS. File systems can easily be
removed from the kernel, but NUMA is part of the kernel core and is harder to
remove. So, one of the versions of SCO's story is pointing at the NUMA
contribution by SGI.
It still boggles my mind when I try to understand SCO's strategy. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
I think some senior people at SCO/Canopy must now have realized they have bitten
off more than they can chew.
But I think that until the stock price starts to really fall, or other Canopy
companies feel pain, I doubt the strategy will change.
When it begins to hurt Canopy as a whole, I think Yarro will probably pull the
rug out from under McBride - maybe not immediately, but at opportune moment.
I think that there might even be one or more people on the board who, while
maybe happy about the current stock price, have spotted the opportunity, are
maybe greasing the skids, and looking forward to the chance to stick a knife (in
the metaphor sense, not literal!) in McBride's back. I think look for the ones
for you might expect to be saying more about SCOsource but hardly open their
mouths.
I personally would find it enjoyably ironic, if this were to end with ex-CEO
McBride suing SCO or vice-versa. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
Why people still don't figure out that Microsoft is behind it:
1) Attacking GPL, what did that have to do with the initial suite of contract
breach
2) Asking rediculous licensing fee for linux ($1500?), which is beyond
reasonable to let Linux continue to be a competative platform
3)Very biased coverage of Tech-experts like Didio in supporting SCO standpoint.
Did they mention anything about MS patent infrigments?
4)Addressing issues of indemnification, something even Microsoft doesnt do.
(tell that to Didio)
It all links to Microsoft!, something even an IBM spokesman has mentioned
himself.
Microsoft last 'lock in' attempt will be Longhorn, since they know Linux will
one day soon be a real winner.
I expect, after SCO is finnished, MS itself will strart with attacking Linux
with all the patents they own Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
We all know that Microsoft likes the FUD SCO is spreading, they pay SCO for
licenses, without being forced to do so in court. I recommend http://www.lamlaw.com/ if you like to read
some good Microsoft bashing, on this website we prefer to concentrate on Linux
and the SCO lawsuits.
BTW, Pete, why do you link yourself to Microsoft (Hotmail)? MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
This is going to sound like heresy, but is anyone going to SCO Forum? I'd love
to get a report on how SCO is handling the whole IBM suit "in the family" and
how the SCO forum participants are discussing the issue. I'd also like to see
how many sponsors actually show up.
So if anyone's professional duties force your attendance at SCO Forum, please
take good notes. Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
Pete,
It's easy to look for a MS conspiracy, and even find "evidence" to back the
claim.
But, I tend to follow the adage "why blame conspiracy, when
stupidity will suffice?"
In the current situation, my supicion is that the executive officers of the then
Caldera while looking at decling revenues from their SCO products, minimal
revenues from their GNU/Linux offering and stock that was in the tank decided
that the only way the company could be saved was by expoiting what ever they
could from the rights they held in SysVrX. In examining the source, and the AT&T
licenses, they, stupidly, concluded that they hold more rights than they do. D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
OK, I'll skip further bashing of Microsoft :)
About the previous post, it's indeed intersting to see how the SCO forum forum
wil turn out, in Las Vegas of all places. Perhaps next year in Redmond here I go
again...)
How many people are expected there (attendants and reporters(media)) Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
The possibility of the SCO site being hacked should not be ignored - I imagine
it is a fairly high profile target right now. I'd imagine some of the attackers
would be likely to be trying to discredit SCO with their changes rather than opt
for a straight defacement which makes our task in trying to work out what SCO
are up to even harder. No evidence that this is the case, just something to
consider.
I suspect the reason SCO decided to go for IBM was because of Monterey - they
thought that that gave them grounds to challenge IBM for supporting Linux
regardless of the ownership of the code. They probably still thought that when
they wrote the notification that they would withdraw the license but realised
when drawing up their complaint that it looked too weak (maybe because those
contracts were with old SCO and never got transferred - marketing agreements for
a dead project were probably considered irrelevant at the time of the sale) so
they would have to come up with something else.
I don't think the Linux Today comments about us doing our investigation in the
open are a real threat - the important investigation is what IBM are doing - the
fact that IBM may choose to make use of what is discussed here and elsewhere
does not mean that IBM will not be able to pull a few surprises at trial. It may
of course stop things going to trial if SCO realise their case is too weak to be
worth persuing - even if David Boies is on contingency getting all of the
required expert opinions will cost real money. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
Another thing about the share trading. I pointed out before that according to
the last SCO annual report 5.3M of the 6M shares held by insiders are actually
Canopy's shares. If that figure is still accurate then what has happened to the
new shares that were issued to acquire Vultus - all the links I can find at the
moment just say that "financial terms of the deal were not disclosed" but I'm
sure I've read somewhere that 3M new SCO shares were issued which would
naturally have gone to Vultus's owner, Canopy. If that is the case either these
got forgotten in coming up with the 6M figure or Canopy have already sold them
(rather difficult to hide that many shares in small sales though).
If we ignore subtract the 5.3M from 6M then only 700K shares are held by
individual directors and of those 114K were sold last quarter and at least 140K
are expected to be sold this quarter - it suddenly makes their confidence look a
lot less impressive. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
"In March, SCO filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging that IBM
illegally put some of SCO's protected Unix source code into the open-source
Linux project. The lawsuit was later amended to include additional claims and
now seeks at least $3 billion. Last week, SCO announced that it would sell
special Unix licenses for $699 per processor to allow enterprise Linux users to
use Linux legally without violating SCO's alleged intellectual property.
According to SCO's estimates, with some 2.5 million enterprise servers running
Linux, there is a 'very significant opportunity' for SCO to gain revenue through
the licenses, McBride said. At $699 per CPU, that becomes a potential pool of
revenue in the neighborhood of $1.7 billion.
'We're cautiously optimistic,' he said. 'We've done a lot of models on this, and
the models are pretty exciting.'"
-- SCO's McBride: IT world backs SCO in its fight with IBM
That drooling, greedy thief actually thinks people will pay him for code even if
the court finds in SCO's favor. Has it not occurred to him that the moment they
reveal the "offending code", a new, non-offending version will be available?
I'm quickly coming to agree with those who think McBride and his cohorts are
simply dumb. There is no "grand strategy", beyond basic stupidity. Jonathan
Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
IANAL, all opinion, all speculation, etc:
I think, that I doubt McBride really thinks he will get the fees. If he did he
would put $699 X 2.5 million on his revenue prediction (in SEC filings and
quarterly reports) spread over the next few quarters. He didn't.
But he gave the *vague* impression that it might be plausible to people
listening to his conference call, that there was something there.
Microsoft? I'm sure they are enjoying the circus, but the public evidence [MS
Australia comments, comments after they bought the license], to me at least, is
more suggestive that they were hit on by SCO too, and simply paid them to go
away. Do you really think Microsoft would be pleased just months after paying
up, that SCO then appears in Byte and starts making new claims on Windows?
If you look at what Microsoft says they think they licensed, it sounds more like
some APIs and source code for UNIX interfacing. In the pro-SCO press, this is
presented as if it somehow has something to do with the Linux license scheming,
and means Microsoft said they endorsed it. Neither of which is true AFAIK.
I don't think they is any love lost between MS and
SCO/Canopy/Caldera/Yarro-Norda.
MS are not fools, and can also see SCO/Caldera is massively outmatched by IBM.
They know the outcome will be in IBM's favor, that MS has massive business
interests entwined with IBM etc., so they'd be fools to damage that to support
some guys they don't even like with a 1 in a million shot. One of MS's strengths
is a long-term business strategy, they just keep plugging away, so they'll be
thinking about what happens to them in 2,3,4,5 years not just short-term FUD
effects.
In sumamry, I think that people are confusing two different things:
1. Whether MS actively support SCO/Canopy?
2. Whether SCO/Canopy wants people to think MS support SCO/Canopy?
I see plenty of evidence for 2.
No real evidence whatsoever, so far for 1. The only so-called "evidence" is in
the same articles with are filled with McBride-isms and DiDio-isms, and the
tin-foil hat brigade "it would be typical MS to do something like this", or "MS
hate Linux...blah blah".
Personally I think, and agree with the comments, that you don't need complicated
conspiracy theories, when greed and stupidity are available, and sufficient
explanation. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
Agreed.
Greed_Stupidity=1
Conspiracy=0 Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Quatermass >> looking forward to the chance to stick a knife (in the metaphor
sense, not literal!)
When I first read up on McBride's past and Yarrow's past what struck me is that
this is now a good candidate for the classical 'den of vipers' cliche that gets
overused in adventure novels.
I started wondering a long time ago, who's squirreling what documents away,
who's secretly taping meetings, all for both self-protection (who wouldn't want
to protect oneself in a den of vipers?) and for use later as weapons (this group
of vipers knows a thing or 2 about litigation) ....
I dunno, it's very reminiscent of 'house harkonnen' and some of Frank H.'s best
cloak-and-dagger intrigue-upon-intrigue stuff. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
> I dunno, it's very reminiscent of 'house harkonnen' and some of Frank H.'s
best cloak-and-dagger intrigue-upon-intrigue stuff.
Agreed, now all we need is McGee and the Bureau of Sabatoge. Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Well the other thought I had, is aside from the legal issues, they've got to
keep this up for another two years, under intense public and press scrutiny, and
with the odds seeming stacked against them -- without turning on each other.
What are the odds of that? quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
I'm surprised that Tarantella is sponsoring them. I wonder how much of a cut
SCO is promising them if they succeed in fleecing IBM for loot.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right:
auto;">MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
Here's an excerpt from "The Halloween Documents: An Appreciation" by Eric
Raymond.
/ Bill Gates pretends to defend ``innovation'', and if he did I'd love him for
it. But there's very little evidence that Microsoft even knows what the word
means. Buying or outright stealing key technologies rather than innovating has
been a Microsoft trait from the beginning. Consider this list...
MS-DOS: bought (from Tim Paterson). PC1 BIOS code: stolen (almost bit-for-bit
from Gary Kildall's CP/M BIOS). The Windows interface: copied (incompetently,
from Apple). On-the-fly disk compression: stolen (from Stac Electronics).
Internet Explorer: bought or stolen, depending on who you believe (from
Spyglass). And the list only starts with these.
And the worst -- the absolute worst -- is that he's conditioned computer users
to expect and even love derivative, shoddily-implemented crap. Millions of
people think that it's right, it's normal to have an operating system so fragile
that it hangs crashes three or four times a week and has to be rebooted every
time you change anything deeper than the wallpaper. /
Here, here! I agree 100%! As a computer engineer, I've been disgusted at MS
since their first pathetic release of BASIC for 8 bit computers. I chose OS/A+
rather than the buggy, slow, expensive joke MS delivered. It's been the same for
everything else they've released since then. Find an alternative and it's
GUARANTEED to be better... which is why MS sooner or later tries to buy or
destroy it.
Anyone who thinks it's just stupidity and not an MS conspiracy should go read
the Halloween Documents at
http://opensource.org/halloween/
Then go read all of Eric Raymond's rant at
http://www.pgts.
com.au/download/misc/halloween-rant.html
Why look for stupidity when conspiracy is clubbing you over the head with a lead
pipe? How obvious does it have to be before you believe? Don't expect Bill to
start advertising on prime time TV. Well, not YET at any rate. Give him a few
more years of unchecked rampages. J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
It can be in-the-open collusion.
Like the time the CEO of a major airline wrote an open letter saying he was not
going to lower HIS fares but if any other airline did he would eagerly get into
a fare war.
Nothing secret or underhanded is required to conduct collusion. Darl never
needs to speak to anyone at MS.
Darl knows what MS wants (MS has been clear vis-a-vis GPL), MS can see what Darl
is doing (he isn't exactly maintaining a low profile) and if MS wants to
support Darl, since he's signalled he'll push their agenda and MS know where to
send the checques.
Same with Sun, all the anti-IBM signalling is public, and SUN's response is
public ("spreading radioactive IP waste?"). All the signalling is public, no
secret collusion, backroom smoke-filled rooms, winks, nods, brown paper bag
filled with money in the tree hollow or under such and such a bridge
required.
I don't know about the legality of this type of public, in-the-open collusion,
though. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
J.F.,
I am well aware of the Halloween Documents, and have been recommending that
people read them for years.
Personally, I have a personal dislike for Microsoft and their methods from the
days they highjacked BASIC, and were an ambitious but basically going nowhere
outfit.
While 'tis quite likely that BG & Co. are cynically supporting SCOG through
their "unix" license, I do *not* see this to be *proof* that the evil empire of
Redmond has instigated SCOG or conspired with SCOG to start these actions.
Speaking of cluesticks, you might want to understand that participants in this
forum have mutual understanding to avoid the very easy tactic of bashing MS. We
also have a tacit agreement to avoid flaming.
Regards D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 16 2003 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
"Joey Mele, president of JBT Production Services, a small consulting company in
Las Vegas, wrote that McBride is off-base in claiming that the silent majority
of the IT world is behind him. 'I just couldn't believe the guy could say
something like that,' Mele said in an interview. 'It's so detached from
reality.'"
O dont know of anyone that supports him, and from my understanding, SCO is
losing sponsors fast for its SCO forum. I cannot think of anything funnier than
McBride standing alone talking to an empty room. Roberto J. Dohnert[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=11070 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
Microsoft's history of conspiracy: "Do we have a clear plan on what we want
Apple to do to undermine Sun?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22we+want+Apple+to+do+to+undermine+Sun%3F%22
David Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
"Why look for stupidity when conspiracy is clubbing you over the head with a
lead pipe?"
Because stupidity is a lot easier to pull off successfully. And the necessary
talents are a lot more common... Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
I'm not saying Microsoft isn't rooting for Linux to be held up by the
uncertainty SCO's sowing. But McBride seems to be so thoroughly foolish (how
dumb do you have to be to invite an SEC investigation? At least try to be a
little sneaky) that I don't think any collusion with M$ would be
necessary to start this sort of ball rolling. I'm just amazed SCO didn't go
under before this.
And yes, I've been aware of the "Halloween Documents" since Raymond first
released them... Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Every time MS is excused by reason of "stupidity," there are ENCOURAGED to try
again. Why not? Nothing to lose and people just chalk it up to stupidity while
they take over more of the industry. How's that quote go? All it takes for evil
to spread is for the forces of good to stand by and do nothing. Something like
that, and very relevant to the topic. All it takes for MS to spread is for
everyone else to just shrug their shoulders and say nothing to do here, they're
just being stupid again.
Given MS's past track record, they should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt.
They haven't earned it. In fact, given their past record, every move should be
scrutinized and challenged. Microsoft should be under some form of industry
probation with a probabtion officer examining every part of their business at
regular and frequent intervals. J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
re: Microsoft conspiracy?
I thought this could be true, but then I remembered that SCO is controled by
Canopy, and Canopy is owned by Ray Norda, and Ray Norda hates Microsoft with a
passion and would never do anything to help them. Or do I have this wrong? david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
J.F.
Like I said, what _evidence_ do you have of a Microsoft conspiracy in this
fiasco? I haven't seen any.
Let's not forget SCO may want you to think Microsoft is behind them. It could
part of the bluff to give the impression they had more resources and support
behind them, than they in fact do. See my previous 8/16/03; 12:48:01 PM post for
further comments quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
J.F. -- Microsoft's not stupid. I'm talking about SCO and their CEO.
If Microsoft is involved and it can be proved, then they'll likely be punished
for it. I believe IBM has already made references to the possibility. But just
because it's something "they would do" doesn't mean that they're doing it. I'm
afraid you need a little more than that. Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
And just to be clear: I'm not saying that Microsoft wouldn't collude in
something like this, and I'd like nothing better than to see them go down if
they're involved. Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
If I had evidence, Microsoft would have me killed. :) Seriously, there are too
many coincidences to be anything other than some behind the scenes manipulation
by Microsoft with SCO as their patsy. See Lamlaw for more detailed info. The guy
has a decidedly anti-Microsoft slant, but that just means he digs into the
details of MS / SCO more.
http://www.lamlaw.com/ J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|