Brian, I'm Just Curious...
JamesDad
another angle of information related to The SCO Group's shenanigans and
have found some pieces of news that I haven't seen elsewhere.
At present, I do not use any form of Unix or Unix-based software (though
I've got longer-range plans to start using Linux). I do not own any SCO
Group products or stock or anything else. I have no personal vested
interest in the hoopla other than a desire to see Linux go forward and to
see the truth win out.
In terms of opinions on the issue, you and I are pretty close. I think the
public information and impressions are mounting that the SCO Group has
been blowing smoke all along and that there may not even BE a SCO Group to
face IBM (or anybody else) by the time of the trial. The article posted
11/5, reporting that SCO is actively resisting the full disclosure
requested by IBM as part of Discovery, seems to me to be the final straw.
Even at the risk of being placed under court order (which could lead to a
Contempt of Court judgment) and having their suit thrown out (and no
telling what else), they're blowing smoke on the issue of coughing up the
code right in the judge's face. If nothing else has made the point, this
issue unquestionably makes the point to me that the SCO Group has no
evidence to base a case on and yes, they're going to get clobbered if they
continue to persist.
What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
like you yourself have some stake in this matter. I don't have one, so
while I'm rather torqued at the SCO Group's shenanigans, I don't take it
as a personal issue and have no passion to rant and rave as I've seen from
you in this group. Nor do I consider all users of SCO software, all
computer consultants who support SCO software as part of their portfolio,
all employees of SCO (most of which are just lummoxes like you and me just
trying to do a job so they can support themselves and their families--some
of the ones who are going to REALLY get hurt by all of this) and anyone
who says a legitimate kind word about SCO (even with all the things
happening, surely SOMEBODY there has to be doing SOMETHING right) to be my
mortal enemy. My only beef is with the MANAGEMENT of the SCO Group, who
have taken a company that was barely keeping its head above water and seem
to be determined to go out with a bang and take as many people and
companies as possible with them, creating havoc along the way.
So what's the deal? What's your stake in this thing? How have the SCO
Group's actions injured you personally? Why of all the issues in the world
that call for our attention have you chosen this one to pour your anger
and passion into, to the extent of venting personal abuse on others?
Enquiring minds want to know!
=======================================================================
I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
Bill Andersen
> Brian, I'm new to this group. I primarily subscribed so that I could have
> another angle of information related to The SCO Group's shenanigans and
> have found some pieces of news that I haven't seen elsewhere.
<snip>
> So what's the deal? What's your stake in this thing? How have the SCO
> Group's actions injured you personally? Why of all the issues in the world
> that call for our attention have you chosen this one to pour your anger
> and passion into, to the extent of venting personal abuse on others?
Mike,
Your questions are good. And I won't try to speak _for_ Brian, because
I'm sure he can speak for himself. However, at some point in Brian's
life he may face some of the realities of life as you have with James.
Only then will he truly understand what battles are worth fighting.
I have faced similar challenges, although not with my children.
I thank God every day I continue to outlive my children. However selfish
it may seem, I pray I will outlive them all - because I can't imagine
having to deal with losing a child as you have. Your calm demeanor in
your writing reflects your experiences have shown you what really
matters in life. Some day, Brian will "get it" too...
Bill
JamesDad
> I thank God every day I continue to outlive my children. However selfish
I presume you meant "your children continue to outlive you" and you pray
"they will all outlive you"? :-)
Bill Andersen
> > I thank God every day I continue to outlive my children.
> However selfish
> > it may seem, I pray I will outlive them all...
>
> I presume you meant "your children continue to outlive you" and you pray
> "they will all outlive you"? :-)
Oh my! Yes, that is how I read it to myself. I hope my children
outlive me by many years... And I thought I read that over and over!
Joe Dunning
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>like you yourself have some stake in this matter. I don't have one, so
>while I'm rather torqued at the SCO Group's shenanigans,
I think you are missing the bigger picture. SCO has made this an issue
of how trustworthy is open source software.
Now, many people feel that Microsoft's monoply is bad for the industry
(outsode of those working for Microsoft). The only credible threats to
Microsoft at this time are from open source.
I believe Microsoft's ambition is to get to the point that AT&T
achieved: every household paying $50-$100 per month -- Microsoft does
not want to sell software, renting is a much more attractive model for
them, perhaps with some services thrown in.
Whatever Microsoft's role in this fiasco, it is clear that Microsoft is
benefiting. Open Source adoption is likely being slowed down.
Given that, so far, SCO has shown absolutely no evidence to back up any
allegations it appears to be a pure FUD attack. Maybe the original idea
was that IBM would settle? Even though the execs don't seem to have made
vast amounts of money selling stock so far, they have made some money.
Also, undoubtably ordinary employees have sold stock at prices that are
inflated by what appears to be an unfounded lawsuit. Is it so
unreasonable to get angry at people making money from unfounded attacks
on open source software?
Many people posting hear and in other forums want to counter SCO's FUD.
Is that so unreasonable?
JamesDad
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:24:28 GMT, JamesDad
><mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>>like you yourself have some stake in this matter. I don't have one, so
>>while I'm rather torqued at the SCO Group's shenanigans,
>
>I think you are missing the bigger picture. SCO has made this an issue
>of how trustworthy is open source software.
I'll address your comments after I hear from Brian. In the meantime, I
suggest that you don't make any assumptions about what I do or don't know,
what I do or don't understand or what I do or don't believe. You've
already demonstrated that you don't know.
'nuff said for now.
Brian
<clipped for brevity>
> So what's the deal? What's your stake in this thing? How have the SCO
> Group's actions injured you personally? Why of all the issues in the
> world that call for our attention have you chosen this one to pour
> your anger and passion into, to the extent of venting personal abuse
> on others?
> Enquiring minds want to know!
Ten months ago I had no strong opinions about Caldera/The SCO Group other
than they were a Linux distributor who seemed to be having problems finding
a niche.
I have installed Linux network services in commercial environments since
1995 and for the last two years have begun installing and supporting Linux
desktops.
I attempt to be as responsible as I can in what I promise and what I can
deliver - I have turned away business rather than do a job poorly.
Any Linux supporter will tell you it is a constant battle to overcome the
flood of FUD that originates from Redmond - if Linux wasn't ten times
better than Windows we would have been kicked to the curb years ago.
Now here comes The SCO Group that apparently has a contract dispute with IBM
but goes on a public relations rampage against the open source movement -
the very community from which it sprang and obtained it's funding.
Was SCO trying to get acquired by IBM? No - IBM would never purchase a
company that was purposely perpetrating a fraudulent claim.
Was SCO seriously attempting to secure licensing fees from Linux users? No -
every attempt to buy a Linux license has failed.
Was SCO hoping to prevail in the IBM lawsuit? Not if their present conduct
is any indicator. Right from the onset SCO refused to identify the Linux
code that was in dispute. It is one thing to reveal your own code but it is
quite another to refuse to identify the alledged infringement. It is
unprecedented!
Darl McBride, Chris Sontag and Blake Stowell have traveled the globe in a
carefully planned and fully funded campaign of FUD directed at the heart of
Linux!
This was not the conduct of a company with a real IP problem, SCO's agenda
was very clearly to destroy Linux, the GPL and open source.
Credibility is everything when you are handling an organizations data and
communication and there are few things that scares a CEO more than the
prospect of litigation.
I have a great deal of pride in and respect for the open source movement,
the free software foundation and the Linux community. Now I find my
personal profession and my community the subject of ridicule and disrespect
as a consequence of SCO's deliberate and baseless attacks.
I am pissed!
I am pissed at the engineers that work at SCO who know that this is a fraud
and yet hold their silence. I am pissed at the thick headed thinking that
refuses to acknowledge facts in evidence that point to the truth of SCO's
duplicity. I am pissed at the slow witted slack jawed stubborn support that
still exists behind a facade of protest.
Even today as the legal noose tightens The SCO Group is continuing to
perpetuate this destructive attack. They continue to pose like injured
victims with a legitimate legal claim in any venue that will have them -
their worst crime is that they are plausible liars and continue to cause
real damage.
I am pissed and I feel compelled to share. I have emailed Darl, Chris and
Blake but they have not replied. I have written to a number of misinformed
journalists that are running with this story and they have not answered. I
have even emailed many of SCO's partners and supporters sharing my concerns
but have only received perfunctory acknowledgment. Now I am sharing with
the only SCO community that still exists.
So yes, I am seething with anger and I am not motivated in any way to be
polite about it.
What I do not do is interfere with legitimate traffic in this newsgroup or
disparage technology advice. I may even have professional respect for some
of the experts in this newsgroup however I feel about their personal
integrity.
That is my story James Dad - as a sidebar, I have a grown son named James. I
still worry about my grown children and cherish my youngest daughter.
I wish you strength in your loss - I can't even begin to imagine...
Best regards,
Brian
Network Services
Tony Lawrence
>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
I think you need to understand more of the psychology of Linux. As
you correctly noted, most of the usual posters here are businesspeople
who happen to use, sell, or support SCO products. Our reasons for
doing so are quite dispassionate: for example, I got involved with it
as a consultant because there was (and is) a large installed base, many
of whom had no support available from the original application vendor
who sold it. Ideal pickings for a consultant. I will say that
I prefer the Unix way of doing things over Windows, but there's
little emotion involved: it's more like preferring real tools to
some $5.00 "kit" you buy at WalMart.
A lot of Linux people (not all, of course) have a very emotional
involvement with Linux and/or Open Source. They are much like
the sports fan who is elated when "their" team wins and
depressed when it does not: Linux is "their team".
Now here is SCO attacking their team. And it is a real attack, with
the possibility of real damage being done that could reach far beyond
Linux, and, in my opinion, could boomerang back and destroy SCO
and everything else non-Microsoft too. There is legitimate reason
for concern, and while I don't share the anger particularly, I can
understand it.
So, these people really do have a legitimate gripe: SCO's actions
are potentially quite damaging. But it's like being angry at
the company destroying your view for building a sub-division
next door: they have an apparent right to do what they are
doing. Now maybe it's possible to prove that the owner lied about
the perc tests, or is violating un-noticed zoning or environmental
laws etc., but unless you really can prove that, there's no
point in getting rabid about it, and there is especially no reason
to be screaming at the people who are just working at the project.
The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
SCO is lying, that it's all stock manipulation, a big Microsoft
conspiracy plot, etc. Any or all of that MIGHT be true, of
course, but none of it is at all certain right now. No doubt
this last paragraph will trigger another round of foul invective
from the True Believers..
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
JamesDad
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>
>I think you need to understand more of the psychology of Linux.
I understand quite a bit about the psychology involved; I've experienced
it myself in the past involving a number of issues. In my case, to ampligy
what Bill suggested in his post, I'm burned out on getting fired up about
things (pun intended). While losing my son was bad enough, several other
things of comparable emotional devastation happened around the same
time--I'm still recovering from them. My 73-year-old parents still get
fired up about all kinds of issues that don't amount to a hill of beans,
but I don't have the energy anymore and have learned both to pick my
battles and the strategy in which I pursue them. From what I've read,
Brian and I are probably in fairly close agreement on the issues, and I at
least identify with the emotionally charged reactions he has. In my own
advocacy of issues, I've put my foot in my mouth more times than I care to
remember--shoe leather tastes horrible. :-)
>The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
>SCO is lying, that it's all stock manipulation, a big Microsoft
>conspiracy plot, etc. Any or all of that MIGHT be true, of
>course, but none of it is at all certain right now. No doubt
>this last paragraph will trigger another round of foul invective
>from the True Believers..
Being the son of an agricultural engineer (who taught me the difference
between theory, hypothesis and fact) and having been a pastor "in another
life" (and having learned at least a few things about epistemology--the
philosophical discipline of "how do you know?" along the way), some of
those insights could help temper this discussion. They do for me, anyway.
Truth is absolute. Perception of truth is relative. There are
possibilities, probabilities, and the most probable which by an exercise
of faith we act on (which we do every time we walk through a closed door,
believing that nobody ready to kill us is on the other side--extreme
example). Distinguishing between these different things means "flying low"
to the documented facts, and any theories, hypotheses, etc. require
keeping that in mind.
"SCO is lying"--they've been caught in too many outright lies (SCOForum
and the subsequent "spin" as the most obvious example) to discredit that
one. Concluding that lying and hiding the facts is their M.O. on these
issues is not unreasonable and something I think any reasonable person
who's examined the issues with an open mind can run with.
Much of the rest of what I read are conclusions made by people who are
trying to make sense of the bizarre behaviors of SCO; and while they're OK
as working hypotheses go, I wouldn't bet the farm on 'em. Plus, I got
burned out on conspiracy theory stuff nearly a quarter of a century ago,
so I'm pretty leery of anything along that line.
"it's all stock manipulation"--a lot of funky things have been happening
with SCO's stock this year, and several seemingly unethical things have
happened in relation to it (Vultus, for example). But "all" is attributing
too much to this until the SEC gets involved (which it may be already) and
actually makes a determination. We don't have access to SCO's books, and
we certainly don't know what goes on in the bizarre mind of Darl McBride.
"a Microsoft conspiracy plot"--that makes a LOT of sense as far as a
working hypothesis goes. What we know is 1) there have been direct cash
infusions to SCO from Microsoft (licenses), 2) the $50M investment *could*
have been orchestrated by Microsoft (who is an investor in Baystar
Ventures), 3) SCO's attacks (with no evidence offered) on the Linux kernel
code, the GPL (only the latest being its flagrant disregard of the GPL in
order to access the SCO Linux RPMs and SRPMs), the character of those in
the Linux Community (the "open letter") and such certainly play into the
hands of Microsoft, which would love nothing more than a crippled public
view of Linux. But I've seen no "Halloween memo" documenting an actual
cause and effect. It's a hypothesis, not a given.
"an attack on Linux and open source"--certainly their FUD machine is
making big hay doing so. But is that their real goal? All the FUD may be a
means to another end, and the attacks may be in service to that bigger
end. SCO's corporate behavior has been so bizarre that ANYTHING could be
the real reason--if in fact they have one.
BTW, I'm a part-time Mac person as well, having gotten interested in them
somewhat over a year ago. In fact, one of my other addresses (which I
don't use on Usenet and has so far been blissfully spam-free) uses the nym
"MUGWump"--my MUG (also a play on Macintosh Users Group) is on the Mac
side, while my Wump (where most of my experience lays) is on the PC side.
If you're on the "Mactalk" list, you'll see my postings regularly.
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>
>
>A lot of Linux people (not all, of course) have a very emotional
>involvement with Linux and/or Open Source. They are much like
>the sports fan who is elated when "their" team wins and
>depressed when it does not: Linux is "their team".
>
>Now here is SCO attacking their team. And it is a real attack, with
>the possibility of real damage being done that could reach far beyond
>Linux, and, in my opinion, could boomerang back and destroy SCO
>and everything else non-Microsoft too. There is legitimate reason
>for concern, and while I don't share the anger particularly, I can
>understand it.
I think that there is also a sense of frustration. The mainstream press
appear to be very uncritical of SCO's story -- it's very difficult to
get your story heard if the reporters only print the other side's
story.
>
>The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
>SCO is lying, that it's all stock manipulation, a big Microsoft
>conspiracy plot, etc. Any or all of that MIGHT be true, of
>course, but none of it is at all certain right now. No doubt
>this last paragraph will trigger another round of foul invective
>from the True Believers..
>
With respect Tony, SCO has been shown to be lying. There are many
examples of this and it does not take too much research to find them.
What has not been shown is that everything they have said about the
lawsuit is a lie. Whether you presume that they are not lying in their
(so far) unproven statements or not is up to you, however, I think it is
probably a litmus test for many.
Bill Vermillion
JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
...
>Much of the rest of what I read are conclusions made by people who are
>trying to make sense of the bizarre behaviors of SCO; and while they're OK
>as working hypotheses go, I wouldn't bet the farm on 'em. Plus, I got
>burned out on conspiracy theory stuff nearly a quarter of a century ago,
>so I'm pretty leery of anything along that line.
And for reading what is in the e-press this one popped up today.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5106450.html
At least there are some preliminary court dates mentioned.
This may get solved bewore we have to tackle Y3K problems.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
JamesDad
Brian, thanks for your moderated and well-thought-out reply. It gives me a
much higher opinion of you than your previous posts have. I was prepared
to get a "Go f--- yourself" or something like that in response, which I
would have followed up with a PLONK. Something that I suspect others in
this group have done already.
This is going to be a "sandwich" reply; I'll be freely snipping out things
as I reply. BTW, please read the whole thing before you reply. You might
want to read Tony's post and my reply to him as well. Please note that if
I ask you a question (such as one reference for pointers), I REALLY DO
look for a response. Few things irritate me more than an unanswered direct
question in an email/Usenet post.
And PLEASE think reflecively about what I have to say before responding.
Email me privately (note the comment in my sig about ARROGANCE) if you
wish--that way your ego isn't on the line.
>JamesDad wrote:
>
>> So what's the deal? What's your stake in this thing? How have the SCO
>> Group's actions injured you personally? Why of all the issues in the
>> world that call for our attention have you chosen this one to pour
>> your anger and passion into, to the extent of venting personal abuse
>> on others?
>
>I have installed Linux network services in commercial environments since
>1995 and for the last two years have begun installing and supporting Linux
>desktops.
That could explain some of your venom; SCO's actions are a threat to your
personal livelihood, above and beyond your personal allegiance to Linux.
>Any Linux supporter will tell you it is a constant battle to overcome the
>flood of FUD that originates from Redmond - if Linux wasn't ten times
>better than Windows we would have been kicked to the curb years ago.
As well I know. I've followed the machinations of M$ for a long time.
Their corporate ethos is paranoia, and I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.
>Now here comes The SCO Group that apparently has a contract dispute with IBM
>but goes on a public relations rampage against the open source movement -
>the very community from which it sprang and obtained it's funding.
You ask some cogent questions about The SCO Group's motivations;
personally, I have no idea what they're REALLY up to or if they even HAVE
an overall plan. Their actions are just too bizarre to make sense of,
IMHO.
>Darl McBride, Chris Sontag and Blake Stowell have traveled the globe in a
>carefully planned and fully funded campaign of FUD directed at the heart of
>Linux!
The FUD I'm well aware of; can you give me some pointers to all this
globe-hopping? I only know of the trip to Japan, months ago.
>This was not the conduct of a company with a real IP problem, SCO's agenda
>was very clearly to destroy Linux, the GPL and open source.
As I said in my reply to Tony, I consider this to be a conclusion drawn
from some pretty bizarre facts and actions on the part of SCO. While their
actions certainly have that appearance, I don't know that this is what
they're REALLY up to--it may be a means to an end.
>Credibility is everything when you are handling an organizations data and
>communication and there are few things that scares a CEO more than the
>prospect of litigation.
Two comments on credibility;
1) See <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1380517,00.asp>, Steven
Vaughan-Nichols' new piece involving the same basic issues as Enrique's
11/5 post "OT: suit news". Steven points out that SCO has now pretty much
shot its own credibility. It can't look very good to much of anybody (CEOs
included) when a company alleging misappropriation of proprietary code and
trade secrets won't even say WHAT THEY ARE and is likely to be
court-ordered to put up or shut up (something that's been a long time
coming).
2) Bragging about how you're ripping off people who have invested in SCO's
overinflated stock and replying to people who may be legitimately
concerned about your mental health with "F--- you" is no way to make
friends and influence people. It only hurts your OWN credibility and can
give people the impression that you're at least paranoid if not a paranoid
schizophrenic (and from what I've been through, I've had the occasion to
meet and know some schizophrenics and certainly can't give them much
credence where behavior and perception due to their illness is involved).
One doesn't gain allies by shooting them.
>I have a great deal of pride in and respect for the open source movement,
>the free software foundation and the Linux community. Now I find my
>personal profession and my community the subject of ridicule and disrespect
>as a consequence of SCO's deliberate and baseless attacks.
>
>I am pissed!
I can't blame you!
>I am pissed at the engineers that work at SCO who know that this is a fraud
>and yet hold their silence.
I think my earlier comment applies: "Nor do I consider...all employees of
SCO (most of which are just lummoxes like you and me just trying to do a
job so they can support themselves and their families--some of the ones
who are going to REALLY get hurt by all of this)...to be my mortal enemy.
My only beef is with the MANAGEMENT of the SCO Group..." To raise a
different angle on the "indemnification" red herring; are you offering
employment and moving expenses to anyone at SCO who gets FIRED because
they speak up? (That's rhetorical--I don't need a reply to that.) If M$
will get a temp fired because he put a picture of Mac G5's being delivered
on his blog (and they DEVELOP Mac software, for cryin' out loud!), no
telling for what insignificant thing SCO will fire somebody. You couldn't
pay me enough to work for SCO, but for many who are already there, I'm
sure that they don't have much of a choice. IT jobs are still tight. And
some (esp. some of the old Santa Cruz Operation folks) may be trudging
along not out of allegiance to The SCO Group but out of allegiance to
those who have depended on SCO Unizware and/or SCO OpenServer for a long
time. Though with Novell's acquisition of SuSE, perhaps some of them are
sharpening their Linux skills and their resumes--I just checked
<http://maps.expedia.com> and it's 9 miles/18 minutes from Provo, UT
(Novell HQ) to Lindon, UT (SCO HQ), a reasonable commute, esp. if they
live between the two. Once on Novell's payroll, they can squawk about SCO
to their heart's content. At least until SCO sues them for libel or at
least threatens to.
Attacking SCO employees for what the management is doing reminds me of a
thread I saw in another group some months ago: "IF YOU SEE A FRENCH
PERSON, HIT THEM AS HARD AS YOU CAN." I don't blame the French citizenry
for their government's refusal to take part in the Iraq War. Nor do I
blame you, a Canadian citizen (noting from your headers) for the Canadian
refusal.
>I am pissed at the thick headed thinking that refuses to acknowledge facts
>in evidence that point to the truth of SCO's duplicity.
Tell me about it--I've been ticked at my immediate family for about 3-4
YEARS because the events surrounding the death of my son brought me to a
mental health collapse (depression, anxiety, etc.) and to this days my
immediate family shows no signs of understanding to the extent of offering
a tangible helping hand to recovery. That's life; the expression "my
mind's made up; don't bother me with the facts" didn't enter the
vernacular for nothin'.
>I am pissed at the slow witted slack jawed stubborn support that
>still exists behind a facade of protest.
First, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about behind all the
judgmental terms. Second, what little I do understand seems to be more of
a conclusion than a fact. I've seen you as one who is quick to judge
people just because they don't get on the same blazing bandwagon you're
on. I've seen how Tony gets picked on in this group (if not by you, at
least by people who seem to be coming from the same perspective), but in
his thoughtful response to my post directed to you, I see you two as being
fairly close in views. You just express it differently.
>Even today as the legal noose tightens The SCO Group is continuing to
>perpetuate this destructive attack. They continue to pose like injured
>victims with a legitimate legal claim in any venue that will have them -
>their worst crime is that they are plausible liars and continue to cause
>real damage.
Hmph! I'd go farther than that. Their bizarre actions have inspired me to
coin a new phrase; "rabid pit bull in a china shop". Sound about right?
>I am pissed and I feel compelled to share. I have emailed Darl, Chris and
>Blake but they have not replied. I have written to a number of misinformed
>journalists that are running with this story and they have not answered. I
>have even emailed many of SCO's partners and supporters sharing my concerns
>but have only received perfunctory acknowledgment. Now I am sharing with
>the only SCO community that still exists.
Speak your mind--but speak it with the goal of WINNING people, which
unfortunately takes persistence, patience and respect. In my email to
Tony, I mentioned that I was a pastor "in a past life" and have been a
committed (born-again, the whole 9 yards) Christian for over a quarter of
a century. One expression I heard that I think applies here is "If our
GOSPEL is offensive, that's one thing. If WE are offensive, that's
another." I think that's true in anything we try to communicate. If WE are
offensive, our message is not going to be heard no matter how much we
batter people with it. I'm a Christian and believe in winning others to
know Him, but I'm not a "Bible banger" in how I do it.
>So yes, I am seething with anger and I am not motivated in any way to be
>polite about it.
Is winning people a motivation to be polite? As maddening as it is when I
passionately believe something, people have their own biases, opinions and
concerns that color their interpretation of what you say, and acting like
an angry, rude boor will gain no results except possibly to turn people
off.
>What I do not do is interfere with legitimate traffic in this newsgroup or
>disparage technology advice.
I've noticed that as I scan the threads, and I respect that if no one else
does.
>That is my story James Dad - as a sidebar, I have a grown son named James. I
>still worry about my grown children and cherish my youngest daughter.
>
>I wish you strength in your loss - I can't even begin to imagine...
>
>Best regards,
>
>Brian
>Network Services
We (my now-ex-wife and I) named him James after the author of the Letter
of James in the New Testament, whom I like to call "The Apostle of
Practical Faith" because of what he had to say. Both from my son's life
and from the teachings of his namesake, I've learned a lot about "faith in
the trenches". And I am thoroughly convinced that apart from the strength
of God through Jesus Christ in my life, I would be dead today myself.
I wish you well, Brian.
JamesDad
wrote:
<snicker> or the Unix2k issue? What year is it that Unix is supposed to go
belly-up? 2028?
SCO may have legitimate reasons for all those subpoenas, but it seems to
me more likely that it's a "tit for tat" retribution for IBM's subpoenas,
possibly trying to obfuscate (SCO's brought a word to the front of my
vocabulary!) IBM's simple "put up or shut up".
JamesDad
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>Now here is SCO attacking their team. And it is a real attack, with
>>the possibility of real damage being done that could reach far beyond
>>Linux, and, in my opinion, could boomerang back and destroy SCO
>>and everything else non-Microsoft too. There is legitimate reason
>>for concern, and while I don't share the anger particularly, I can
>>understand it.
>
>I think that there is also a sense of frustration. The mainstream press
>appear to be very uncritical of SCO's story -- it's very difficult to
>get your story heard if the reporters only print the other side's
>story.
Whatever bad can be said about SCO (and there's a LOT), they are good
spinmeisters.
As for the mainstream press, I'll at least say that eWeek (my primary
source of computer news) doesn't seem to be that way. I have a good bit of
respect for their coverage. Take a look at their page on "The Battle Over
Unix" at <http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,4148,1252499,00.asp>, and read
the stories referenced. I don't think they're taking SCO's story hook,
line and sinker at all. I think they're telling it like it is, which is
mostly bad news for SCO.
As for your reply to Tony, I think I said pretty well what I needed to in
my reply to Tony (which was probably posted while you were working on
yours).
Later on...
FyRE
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>
>I think you need to understand more of the psychology of Linux. As
>you correctly noted, most of the usual posters here are businesspeople
>who happen to use, sell, or support SCO products. Our reasons for
>doing so are quite dispassionate: for example, I got involved with it
For dispassionate, read "mercenary". Tony is a very confused man...
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
JamesDad
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:24:28 GMT, JamesDad
><mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>>like you yourself have some stake in this matter. I don't have one, so
>>while I'm rather torqued at the SCO Group's shenanigans,
>
>I think you are missing the bigger picture. SCO has made this an issue
>of how trustworthy is open source software.
I said I'd get back with you after having heard from Brian, so I'm
following up. I think what he wrote was the most thoughtful message I've
seen him post on the subject.
As for what you posted: there's not a thing you said that I'm not quite
aware of already and far more. Just because I'm relatively calm doesn't
mean I don't know the big picture quite well and am opposed to it. I do
and I am.
>Is it so unreasonable to get angry at people making money from unfounded
>attacks on open source software?
Not at all. In fact, IBM has made that very thing an issue in the
lawsuits. But I don't see venting personal abuse on participants of this
group as an appropriate response,
In addition, from how Brian has described "selling short", I don't see
making money from other people's bad decisions as appropriate, either.
Neither do I see attacking SCO employees as a group to be an appropriate
response, either. At least not unless there's some evidence to be had that
the lower level employees as a group are "in on it" as well. Most of them,
I suspect, are just glad to have a job and are worried about keeping it.
>Many people posting hear and in other forums want to counter SCO's FUD.
>Is that so unreasonable?
Countering arguments is quite appropriate. Making such counter-arguments
personal, abusive, profane and/or vindictive is not. "F--- you, Dave"
("Re: That Sucking Sound You Hear..." by Brian, 11/12/03, 1:49 PM EST) is
not countering SCO's FUD. What's the goal here? To gain an audience and
allies, or to take out one's frustrations by abusing others? Can't do
both, at least not with the same people.
Brian's reply said what needed to be said without being abusive toward
anyone specifically. If he keeps it up, I suspect he'll find more people
listening.
'nuff said for now.
Joe Dunning
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>In addition, from how Brian has described "selling short", I don't see
>making money from other people's bad decisions as appropriate, either.
Money is made on the stock market through 2 means:
1. Increases in company's intrinsic value
2. Making better decisions than others.
I believe 2 happens far more than 1.
Now short sellers provide a useful function in the market. There are
people who WANT to lend their shares to short sellers. It's entirely
appropriate to make money out of short selling UNLESS you are an
insider.
One could take your comments and apply them to people who bought early
this year and are selling now: they are selling to the "greater fools",
who may very well lose their investment. They are making money from the
bad decisions of the "greater fools".
>
>Neither do I see attacking SCO employees as a group to be an appropriate
>response, either. At least not unless there's some evidence to be had that
>the lower level employees as a group are "in on it" as well. Most of them,
>I suspect, are just glad to have a job and are worried about keeping it.
You have ignored my comment that many of those same employees are now
able to make a profit from their own options. That profit is only
possible because of the lawsuit and related anti-Linux FUD. Surely if
they are profiting, then they are complicit. Remember I am discussing
employees exercising options and selling, not outsiders.
>
>>Many people posting hear and in other forums want to counter SCO's FUD.
>>Is that so unreasonable?
>
>Countering arguments is quite appropriate. Making such counter-arguments
>personal, abusive, profane and/or vindictive is not. "F--- you, Dave"
I agree with you here. But I would also comment that if you read this
newsgroup for several months back, you will see people being called
idiots and other derogatory terms because they don't agree that SCO has
some right to launch its unsubstantiated lawsuit.
Neither use is appropriate or justified. I'm just trying to point out
that it is not only Linux suporters.
JamesDad
wrote:
>>Neither do I see attacking SCO employees as a group to be an appropriate
>>response, either. At least not unless there's some evidence to be had that
>>the lower level employees as a group are "in on it" as well. Most of them,
>>I suspect, are just glad to have a job and are worried about keeping it.
>
>You have ignored my comment that many of those same employees are now
>able to make a profit from their own options. That profit is only
>possible because of the lawsuit and related anti-Linux FUD. Surely if
>they are profiting, then they are complicit. Remember I am discussing
>employees exercising options and selling, not outsiders.
Au contraire, Pierre! You didn't read the paragraph you're responding to
closely enough. What individual employees are doing is a different thing
from the employees being in cahoots with SCO management's skullduggery as
a group.
I can't speak to why individual employees do what they do, but if I were
in their shoes and I saw the writing on the wall, I might be doing the
same thing. Not in any way to endorse what management's up to, but to have
a nest egg to support myself and my family after SCO tubes and I'm looking
for a new job. I think that's as likely to fit the scenario for many
people there as a "greedy Gus" attitude would fit other people there.
I think it's right to say "some SCO employees are doing X", but I see no
basis for painting SCO employees as a group with the same brush.
Bill Vermillion
JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:25:01 GMT, b...@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <0me7rv8tr06q56olm...@4ax.com>,
>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>Much of the rest of what I read are conclusions made by people who are
>>>trying to make sense of the bizarre behaviors of SCO; and while they're OK
>>>as working hypotheses go, I wouldn't bet the farm on 'em. Plus, I got
>>>burned out on conspiracy theory stuff nearly a quarter of a century ago,
>>>so I'm pretty leery of anything along that line.
>>
>>And for reading what is in the e-press this one popped up today.
>>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5106450.html
>>At least there are some preliminary court dates mentioned.
>>This may get solved bewore we have to tackle Y3K problems.
><snicker> or the Unix2k issue? What year is it that Unix is
>supposed to go belly-up? 2028?
Not too far of - 2038 - and unless I missed converting it will be
shortly after January 18,2038 and at 22:14:07 EST
>SCO may have legitimate reasons for all those subpoenas, but it seems to
>me more likely that it's a "tit for tat" retribution for IBM's subpoenas,
>possibly trying to obfuscate (SCO's brought a word to the front of my
>vocabulary!) IBM's simple "put up or shut up".
At this stage in the game it's the lawyers who make those
decisions. IBM is the master at obfuscation - by that I mean
burying the requester with so much information they have no hope
of finding the details they want in the mounds of information
given.
Because of the demands IBM wrote one of the most thorough document
searching and indexing programs of it's time, and later sold it.
But during trials like that - while not common - there have been
instances of the documents being delivered in a tractor-trailer.
Watching lawyers parry and thrust is fascinating and sometimes
real life is even more intersting that the movie or tv shows.
Bill Vermillion
JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>As for the mainstream press, I'll at least say that eWeek (my
>primary source of computer news) doesn't seem to be that way. I
>have a good bit of respect for their coverage.
Today's article by Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols seemed somewhat biased
on the IBM side instead of just presenting facts. Lines like
"Everytime I think I heard it all from SCO, they come up
with a new howler". Later he say "Until March this year
SCO/Caldera was one of the leading lights of Linux". That last
statement runs counter to general popular impressions.
He also carries on about NDA and other things, but you don't try
you case in the press - you do it in the courtroom and keep your
big surprises to present their.
I find it more reliable to look at the filings presented by both
sides to see how they are planning their battles, than rely on
interpretations, biased on both sides by the journalists, which
give the slant they wish to convey. If they are that good
at determining who is right or who is wrong, they should go into
law, try some big cases, and then make BIG BUX being interviewed
by the cable TV networks on every case that comes up - even when
it's not in their vale of expertise.
JamesDad
wrote:
>In article <qgn7rvkbquotd1kno...@4ax.com>,
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>><snicker> or the Unix2k issue? What year is it that Unix is
>>supposed to go belly-up? 2028?
>
>Not too far of - 2038 - and unless I missed converting it will be
>shortly after January 18,2038 and at 22:14:07 EST
I knew it was something like that. Thanks, Bill.
>>SCO may have legitimate reasons for all those subpoenas, but it seems to
>>me more likely that it's a "tit for tat" retribution for IBM's subpoenas,
>>possibly trying to obfuscate (SCO's brought a word to the front of my
>>vocabulary!) IBM's simple "put up or shut up".
>
>At this stage in the game it's the lawyers who make those
>decisions. IBM is the master at obfuscation - by that I mean
>burying the requester with so much information they have no hope
>of finding the details they want in the mounds of information
>given.
Which is interesting considering that I recall that one of SCO's
objections over IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery is that supposedly they
had provided a million pages of documents to IBM while IBM had only
provided 100,000. Of course, none of that means anything unless you know
what was *in* those massive piles of paper and how much of it was actually
helpful.
Tony Lawrence
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The statements I've seen
>>>from you in this group are ones seething with personal anger and passion,
>>
>>I think you need to understand more of the psychology of Linux.
>I understand quite a bit about the psychology involved; I've experienced
>it myself in the past involving a number of issues. In my case, to ampligy
>what Bill suggested in his post, I'm burned out on getting fired up about
>things (pun intended). While losing my son was bad enough, several other
Maybe it just comes with age. Many, many things interest me, but there's
nothing in this world I'd say I'm passionate about. True passion requirees
too much setting aside of reality.
>things of comparable emotional devastation happened around the same
>time--I'm still recovering from them. My 73-year-old parents still get
>fired up about all kinds of issues that don't amount to a hill of beans,
>but I don't have the energy anymore and have learned both to pick my
>battles and the strategy in which I pursue them. From what I've read,
>Brian and I are probably in fairly close agreement on the issues, and I at
>least identify with the emotionally charged reactions he has. In my own
>advocacy of issues, I've put my foot in my mouth more times than I care to
>remember--shoe leather tastes horrible. :-)
I don't know whether I'm in agreement. I have an open mind, and still think
it's possible that SCO was and is acting in what they think is good faith.
I do admit that a lot of what they have done would seem to be contrary to
that conclusion, but I also remember that stupidity is as good an explanation
as malice for all of it. I don't LIKE their actions, and am worried about
the long term effects of all of this, but if they do honestly feel cheated by
IBM (and they definitely have been in that seat in the past), they have a right
to seek compensation. There's a lot of if's there, of course.
>>The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
>>SCO is lying, that it's all stock manipulation, a big Microsoft
>>conspiracy plot, etc. Any or all of that MIGHT be true, of
>>course, but none of it is at all certain right now. No doubt
>>this last paragraph will trigger another round of foul invective
>>from the True Believers..
>Being the son of an agricultural engineer (who taught me the difference
>between theory, hypothesis and fact) and having been a pastor "in another
>life" (and having learned at least a few things about epistemology--the
>philosophical discipline of "how do you know?" along the way), some of
>those insights could help temper this discussion. They do for me, anyway.
>Truth is absolute. Perception of truth is relative. There are
I can't agree that truth is absolute. Truth, like everything else in the
universe, is affected by observation. Truth itself is relative, and
can only be approximated. Heck, if some of the physicists are right,
then all possibilities co-exist at once. But that isn't important
here.
>possibilities, probabilities, and the most probable which by an exercise
>of faith we act on (which we do every time we walk through a closed door,
>believing that nobody ready to kill us is on the other side--extreme
>example). Distinguishing between these different things means "flying low"
>to the documented facts, and any theories, hypotheses, etc. require
>keeping that in mind.
Correct. Noting too that we never do have all the facts.
>"SCO is lying"--they've been caught in too many outright lies (SCOForum
>and the subsequent "spin" as the most obvious example) to discredit that
>one. Concluding that lying and hiding the facts is their M.O. on these
>issues is not unreasonable and something I think any reasonable person
>who's examined the issues with an open mind can run with.
Lies is one interpretation. Dumb mistakes is another.
>Much of the rest of what I read are conclusions made by people who are
>trying to make sense of the bizarre behaviors of SCO; and while they're OK
>as working hypotheses go, I wouldn't bet the farm on 'em. Plus, I got
>burned out on conspiracy theory stuff nearly a quarter of a century ago,
>so I'm pretty leery of anything along that line.
Right. It's possible, but I don't think it's very likely.
>"it's all stock manipulation"--a lot of funky things have been happening
>with SCO's stock this year, and several seemingly unethical things have
>happened in relation to it (Vultus, for example). But "all" is attributing
>too much to this until the SEC gets involved (which it may be already) and
>actually makes a determination. We don't have access to SCO's books, and
>we certainly don't know what goes on in the bizarre mind of Darl McBride.
Looks like pretty small potatoes, anyway.
>"a Microsoft conspiracy plot"--that makes a LOT of sense as far as a
>working hypothesis goes. What we know is 1) there have been direct cash
>infusions to SCO from Microsoft (licenses), 2) the $50M investment *could*
>have been orchestrated by Microsoft (who is an investor in Baystar
>Ventures), 3) SCO's attacks (with no evidence offered) on the Linux kernel
>code, the GPL (only the latest being its flagrant disregard of the GPL in
>order to access the SCO Linux RPMs and SRPMs), the character of those in
>the Linux Community (the "open letter") and such certainly play into the
>hands of Microsoft, which would love nothing more than a crippled public
>view of Linux. But I've seen no "Halloween memo" documenting an actual
>cause and effect. It's a hypothesis, not a given.
And a simpler explanation is that Microsoft is simply alert to opportunity.
>"an attack on Linux and open source"--certainly their FUD machine is
>making big hay doing so. But is that their real goal? All the FUD may be a
>means to another end, and the attacks may be in service to that bigger
>end. SCO's corporate behavior has been so bizarre that ANYTHING could be
>the real reason--if in fact they have one.
Perhaps. But the attack itself is real. And it concerns me.
>BTW, I'm a part-time Mac person as well, having gotten interested in them
>somewhat over a year ago. In fact, one of my other addresses (which I
>don't use on Usenet and has so far been blissfully spam-free) uses the nym
>"MUGWump"--my MUG (also a play on Macintosh Users Group) is on the Mac
>side, while my Wump (where most of my experience lays) is on the PC side.
>If you're on the "Mactalk" list, you'll see my postings regularly.
No, not on that list. Not enough time
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>I don't know whether I'm in agreement. I have an open mind, and still think
>it's possible that SCO was and is acting in what they think is good faith.
It's possible that Darl and others have been taken over by aliens, but I
don't think it likely.
SCO provided copies of source code in response to IBM's discovery
requests that had been printed out and scanned. I don't call that good
faith.
>I do admit that a lot of what they have done would seem to be contrary to
>that conclusion, but I also remember that stupidity is as good an explanation
>as malice for all of it.
Well, I understand the stupidty/malice arguments, but at this point you
would have to think that Darl and co. are as thick as bricks to have
made so many "mistakes" as they have done.
What might have happened is that they thought they had a weak claim, did
not investigate it properly and launched the lawsuit thinking they would
get a settlement from IBM. That I am prepared to ascribe to a mistake.
What followed (following the theory above) is an attempt to find the
best way out. However, Darl and co's "best way out" clearly did not
include admitting to a mistake and apologising -- so now they are
compounding their original "mistake". Those actions are neither in good
faith, not do I believe are the "mistakes".
> I don't LIKE their actions, and am worried about
>the long term effects of all of this, but if they do honestly feel cheated by
>IBM (and they definitely have been in that seat in the past),
Given that there is very good evidence of Darl and others lying, why
would you believe them? These are not the people who built up the
Unixware and other Unix products (that was the old SCO), these are not
even the people who built up a Linux business (that was Ransome Love and
others).
they have a right
>to seek compensation. There's a lot of if's there, of course.
>
>
>>>The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
>>>SCO is lying,
Now, I'm not going to say that there is proof that everything that Darl
and co. say is a lie, but there is plenty of evidence -- including
contradictory statements available on the web -- or are those just more
"mistakes"?
The POSSIBLE Microsoft connection is interesting, but at this point
there is little hard evidence.
>
>I can't agree that truth is absolute. Truth, like everything else in the
>universe, is affected by observation. Truth itself is relative, and
>can only be approximated.
What I don't get is why you seem so keen to believe that SCO has some
justification for the lawsuit? Is it that you find it difficult to
believe that people you trusted have lied to you?
>Lies is one interpretation. Dumb mistakes is another.
See my comment above. At some point you have to doubt that a string of
"mistakes" are really mistakes.
Bill Vermillion
Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>>What I'm curious about is this; what's YOUR beef? The
>>>>statements I've seen from you in this group are ones seething
>>>>with personal anger and passion,
>>>I think you need to understand more of the psychology of
>>>Linux.
>>I understand quite a bit about the psychology involved; I've
>>experienced it myself in the past involving a number of issues.
>>In my case, to ampligy what Bill suggested in his post, I'm
>>burned out on getting fired up about things (pun intended).
>>While losing my son was bad enough, several other
>Maybe it just comes with age. Many, many things interest me, but
>there's nothing in this world I'd say I'm passionate about. True
>passion requirees too much setting aside of reality.
I don't know if I go as far as setting aside reality. I would say
passion comes with being able to see possibilites that perhaps
others have overlooked. And I personally don't think age has a
thing to do with, but I have met many years younger than either
of us who have sort of given up. Just today what was to be a 1/2
hour prelminary meeting wound up over 2 hours long and would have
continued but both of us were late for being somewhere else. It
looks exciting - and maybe I'm not passionate about it - but
it really is more than just interesting - though I'm going to
have to learn some more skills. But I can't see that it an 'age'
thing as I think I probably have at least 10 years on you in that
department :-)
Life is far to short to lose the excitement.
Bill
Tony Lawrence
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:39:36 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>I don't know whether I'm in agreement. I have an open mind, and still think
>>it's possible that SCO was and is acting in what they think is good faith.
>It's possible that Darl and others have been taken over by aliens, but I
>don't think it likely.
>SCO provided copies of source code in response to IBM's discovery
>requests that had been printed out and scanned. I don't call that good
>faith.
That's not what I meant by "good faith". I mean it's possible that they really
think they have been wronged. It's also possible that they are just playing
stock games, but I doubt that. It could be a combination too: often people
take a real or imagined affront and see it as an opportunity to profit. How
many people's have gone after large lawsuits after being in small accidents?
>>I do admit that a lot of what they have done would seem to be contrary to
>>that conclusion, but I also remember that stupidity is as good an explanation
>>as malice for all of it.
>Well, I understand the stupidty/malice arguments, but at this point you
>would have to think that Darl and co. are as thick as bricks to have
>made so many "mistakes" as they have done.
Well, quite seriously, for quite a few years now, I have held a very low opinion
of the intelligence of SCO's management. They's muffed opportunity after
opportunity, bumbled along, and seemed hell-bent on destroying the company
long before this.
>What might have happened is that they thought they had a weak claim, did
>not investigate it properly and launched the lawsuit thinking they would
>get a settlement from IBM. That I am prepared to ascribe to a mistake.
Right. Like a car accident.
>What followed (following the theory above) is an attempt to find the
>best way out. However, Darl and co's "best way out" clearly did not
>include admitting to a mistake and apologising -- so now they are
>compounding their original "mistake". Those actions are neither in good
>faith, not do I believe are the "mistakes".
Well, that's a whole nuther idea. People do cling to positions they
can no longer support. Stupidity, stubbornness, pride: all the most
admirable human traits.
>> I don't LIKE their actions, and am worried about
>>the long term effects of all of this, but if they do honestly feel cheated by
>>IBM (and they definitely have been in that seat in the past),
>Given that there is very good evidence of Darl and others lying, why
>would you believe them? These are not the people who built up the
>Unixware and other Unix products (that was the old SCO), these are not
>even the people who built up a Linux business (that was Ransome Love and
>others).
I don't "believe" them. I don't dis-believe them either.
>they have a right
>>to seek compensation. There's a lot of if's there, of course.
>>
>>
>>>>The rabid folk are now going to insist that they have proven that
>>>>SCO is lying,
>Now, I'm not going to say that there is proof that everything that Darl
>and co. say is a lie, but there is plenty of evidence -- including
>contradictory statements available on the web -- or are those just more
>"mistakes"?
I dunno. Time will tell.
>The POSSIBLE Microsoft connection is interesting, but at this point
>there is little hard evidence.
>>
>>I can't agree that truth is absolute. Truth, like everything else in the
>>universe, is affected by observation. Truth itself is relative, and
>>can only be approximated.
>What I don't get is why you seem so keen to believe that SCO has some
>justification for the lawsuit? Is it that you find it difficult to
>believe that people you trusted have lied to you?
Huh? Where did you get the idea that I trust these people? Let me say it
again: SCO Unix is simply an area I chose to concentrate on because (1) I
like Unix and (2) the pickings are good, mostly due to SCO's own past
marketing stupidity.
>>Lies is one interpretation. Dumb mistakes is another.
>See my comment above. At some point you have to doubt that a string of
>"mistakes" are really mistakes.
Perhaps so. But if there is something illegal going on here, the SEC et al.
seems uninterested so far.