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.
Tony Lawrence
>>>>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
I think we're just fondling the words. I haven't lost my zest for
learning, but I just can't see my self as a starry eyed idealist anymore,
passionately embracing anything. Linux, for example, is certainly
interesting, fun, and I think the concept of open source is important
and worth supporting, but I'm not going to get religious about it.
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,
>>
>>
>>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.
They just don't understand your emotional concern. It's just another
lawsuit. If SCO turns out to be a pack of lying thieves, that's just
another story about a pack of lying thieves. At least at this point,
they aren't interested in the bigger picture of capitalism vs, communism,
freedom vs. control, etc. They don't see the relationship of patents,
copyrights, DMCA, Patriot Act, big business, Microsofts monopoly and
even world wide technology jockeying. It's all much too complex
for your typical reporter.
>>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.
OK. We'll just have to disagree onthat. As I've said before, I'm
much more interested and concerned with the larger picture than I
am with SCO.
Tony Lawrence
Mercenary?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yes, my relationship to SCO is entirely mercenary. They had a product that at
one time was very popular in the small business area, but for various reasons
a lot of the users who bought these systems ended up without support. That's
an ideal situation for a consultant like me.
What I'm trying to contrast their with the word "dispassionate" is the
religious fervor exhibited by some of the Linux community. Those folks
(and you may be among them) are selling Linux like the born-agains sell
Jesus, and with the same blind insistence of their way and only their way.
But never mind.. it's all just babble to you, right? Your mind is already
made up.
Bill Vermillion
Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
....
>>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.
Playing 'stock games' is pretty dangeous in this day and age.
Some of those who tried it in recent years are now in prison or
facing that prospect.
Enron/MCI-Worldcom/Martha Stewart are all recent happenings.
Tony Lawrence
>In article <bp5403$uem$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
>Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>....
>>>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.
>Playing 'stock games' is pretty dangeous in this day and age.
>Some of those who tried it in recent years are now in prison or
>facing that prospect.
Damn few, unfortunately.
I picked Putnam for one of my retirement accounts :-(
FyRE
[...]
>>>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...
>
> Mercenary?
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
Oh yes, forgive me if I consider someone willing to do or sell ANYTHING
for cash rather immoral. Maybe "whore" would have been a more apt
description?
[...]
> What I'm trying to contrast their with the word "dispassionate" is the
> religious fervor exhibited by some of the Linux community. Those folks
> (and you may be among them) are selling Linux like the born-agains sell
> Jesus, and with the same blind insistence of their way and only their
> way.
>
> But never mind.. it's all just babble to you, right? Your mind is
> already made up.
I cannot remember if I mentioned it here before, but I actually spend at
least as much time using HPUX as Linux. I use the best tool; and very
often Linux is just that. I don't "sell" Linux, however I've often managed
to make a good case for it to replace other operating systems (Windows,
Netware and SCO primarily) when there are obvious advantages. This makes
business sense. However, unlike you Tony, I don't consider myself a
mercenary; making a few bucks by pushing a virtually obsolete OS
(Unixware, openserver) at a company then taking off with the cash.
You're a very shortsighted person Tony. You don't understand that
promoting the lamentably bad wares of a "company" such as SCO will have
repercussions. If they won their case (which anyone with any sense must
know they won't) the implications would be dire. Yet still you keep
pushing their product.
Tell me this, Tony; if you were offered a few thousand dollars a day to
punch babies in the face, would you do that too? I'd like to see exactly
where someone like you draws the line. I'm betting you'd take the job on,
posting your excuses here like so:
"Well, yes, it may seem like pummeling these infants about the head is
cruel and evil, but how does anyone here know that baby battering is
actually detrimental to their health? It may be good for them!! Anyway,
this gig is putting my own kids through college, so I'll keep smacking
children around until someone proves to me that it's wrong..." etc...
--
FyRE < "Ready Cursor?" >
Bill Andersen
> I cannot remember if I mentioned it here before, but I actually spend at
> least as much time using HPUX as Linux. I use the best tool; and very
> often Linux is just that. I don't "sell" Linux, however I've often managed
> to make a good case for it to replace other operating systems (Windows,
> Netware and SCO primarily) when there are obvious advantages. This makes
> business sense. However, unlike you Tony, I don't consider myself a
> mercenary; making a few bucks by pushing a virtually obsolete OS
> (Unixware, openserver) at a company then taking off with the cash.
So let me get this straight. If a mechanic is willing to work on
a Yugo car because Yogo doesn't offer service/parts any more, the
mechanic is _taking advantage of_ the guy that owns a Yugo?
FyRE, you are wrong about Tony. You clearly don't read anything
Tony writes without reading into it what YOU want it to say.
I understand Tony's position clearly. And for the most part, he
sees it just like I do.
Tony Lawrence
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:08:29 +0000, Tony Lawrence wrote:
>[...]
>>>>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...
>>
>> Mercenary?
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>Oh yes, forgive me if I consider someone willing to do or sell ANYTHING
>for cash rather immoral. Maybe "whore" would have been a more apt
>description?
And of course that's a bad thing in your world also. The reality
of sex workers is of course a sad tale of exploitation and abuse that
would be largely eliminated if it weren't for the type of thinking
exemplified by the use of "whore" as a pejorative, but never mind..
But you extrapolate unreasonably. I am certainly not one who
would compromise principles simply for profit. I see no moral
ambiguity in providing services and product to people who need it.
>[...]
>> What I'm trying to contrast their with the word "dispassionate" is the
>> religious fervor exhibited by some of the Linux community. Those folks
>> (and you may be among them) are selling Linux like the born-agains sell
>> Jesus, and with the same blind insistence of their way and only their
>> way.
>>
>> But never mind.. it's all just babble to you, right? Your mind is
>> already made up.
>I cannot remember if I mentioned it here before, but I actually spend at
>least as much time using HPUX as Linux. I use the best tool; and very
>often Linux is just that. I don't "sell" Linux, however I've often managed
>to make a good case for it to replace other operating systems (Windows,
>Netware and SCO primarily) when there are obvious advantages. This makes
>business sense. However, unlike you Tony, I don't consider myself a
>mercenary; making a few bucks by pushing a virtually obsolete OS
>(Unixware, openserver) at a company then taking off with the cash.
Again, you construct a straw man and then thrash it roundly. I only
"sell" SCO to people who want it. I don't "push it", or push anything.
My business is 99% problem solving - I sell very little product.
>You're a very shortsighted person Tony. You don't understand that
>promoting the lamentably bad wares of a "company" such as SCO will have
>repercussions. If they won their case (which anyone with any sense must
>know they won't) the implications would be dire. Yet still you keep
>pushing their product.
I don't "promote". I don't "push". I provide services to people
who want them.
>Tell me this, Tony; if you were offered a few thousand dollars a day to
>punch babies in the face, would you do that too? I'd like to see exactly
>where someone like you draws the line. I'm betting you'd take the job on,
>posting your excuses here like so:
>"Well, yes, it may seem like pummeling these infants about the head is
>cruel and evil, but how does anyone here know that baby battering is
>actually detrimental to their health? It may be good for them!! Anyway,
>this gig is putting my own kids through college, so I'll keep smacking
>children around until someone proves to me that it's wrong..." etc...
There's no third person here. The people I service and sell to have
good reason to use the product. For those that want to switch, I
am equally available to assist there. Now and then, I even help
people switch to Windows, though I don't want to support them after
that.
It's not beating up babies, its selling diapers to their mothers. You
just don't like the brand they are using.
Tony Lawrence
>You're a very shortsighted person Tony. You don't understand that
>promoting the lamentably bad wares of a "company" such as SCO will have
>repercussions. If they won their case (which anyone with any sense must
>know they won't) the implications would be dire. Yet still you keep
>pushing their product.
My bet is that I have a far greater understanding than you about
the implications of this mess.
I've said before that there is a much larger picture here and that
this stupid little SCO/IBM skirmish is a relatively unimportant
part of it.
You don't seem to understand that I am very concerned about the future of
Linux and Open Source. However, it's not a moral issue at this level.
I do believe that there are larger moral issues overshadowing all of this,
but those are far removed from a copyright squabble.
But you need your strawmen, don't you?
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Oh yes, forgive me if I consider someone willing to do or sell ANYTHING
>for cash rather immoral. Maybe "whore" would have been a more apt
>description?
I presume that means that giving it away for free is the "moral" thing
to do. I've fished computahs out of dumpsters and sold them for cash.
Didn't cost me a thing, so I guess I'm immoral or maybe amoral.
Perhaps because I don't give away my services for free, I'm a "whore"?
>This makes
>business sense. However, unlike you Tony, I don't consider myself a
>mercenary; making a few bucks by pushing a virtually obsolete OS
>(Unixware, openserver) at a company then taking off with the cash.
I don't recall at what point in this discussion I casually mentioned
that I don't sell to many new SCO packages. I inherit the service
contracts on maintaining existing SCO OSR5 systems, which are almost
always bundled as part of an applications software package. I have
sold a few upgrades, but most often simply do the maintenance.
However, I am a mercenary, and will not do very much for free.
>Tell me this, Tony; if you were offered a few thousand dollars a day to
>punch babies in the face, would you do that too? I'd like to see exactly
>where someone like you draws the line.
My parents were unwilling guests in several WWII German concentration
camps. From discussing with them the issues involved, I can assure
you that morality and propriety is highly dependent upon the specific
circumstances. We can discuss lofty ideals but please realize that
where you "draw the line" moves around quite a bit. Speaking for
myself, and not for Tony, I draw the line when my actions hurt someone
else. It will take quite a bit of coercision to get me involved in
any activity that involves hurting someone. For my own curiousity,
who is hurt by my servicing SCO customers and how are they hurt?
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager je...@cruzio.com AE6KS
JamesDad
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>For my own curiousity, who is hurt by my servicing
>SCO customers and how are they hurt?
I've seen this train of logic in other threads; what I think he's saying
is that since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the
support of a legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad
guys", a collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal
threats, an enemy of Linux and of open source software.
By this train of logic, the only way to shed the "bad guy" stigma is to
either migrate your customers away from SCO or to drop 'em. Only then can
you have a clear conscience that you are not supporting the Evil Banana
Empire (I was going to say Banana Republic, but "republic" doesn't seem to
apply to SCO).
By the same train of logic, I've seen statements here that I interpret to
mean that since SCO employees are not publicly speaking out _en_masse_
against the SCO attack on Linux and open source and that some of them are
taking advantage of the stock options they have while the stock is
artificially inflated (before it goes permanently bust, IMHO), they too
are either cohorts or stooges of the Evil Banana Empire. Every dang one of
them. Including the secretaries and the janitors.
I'm probably exaggerating some, but I don't think I'm far off the mark.
And as one of our late Presidents used to say, "LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY
CLEAR": I am NOT saying that I agree with the aforementioned train of
logic. I do NOT agree with it at all. I'm simply attempting to interpret
what I've read in certain posts on this group.
Though I will have to say, "The Evil Banana Empire" does have a certain
ring to it. ;-) I may use that expression in future posts. I kinda like
it.
=======================================================================
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>.
*** Remove ARROGANCE Before Replying ***
Tony Lawrence
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:14:49 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
><je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>For my own curiousity, who is hurt by my servicing
>>SCO customers and how are they hurt?
>I've seen this train of logic in other threads; what I think he's saying
>is that since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the
>support of a legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad
>guys", a collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal
>threats, an enemy of Linux and of open source software.
Of course. But the real question is what Jeff asked: is this hurting
or helping the customers?
That's where my allegiance lies: with the customer.
This isn't some lofty moral principal: it's just business sense. My
survival is dependent on my customers. Not on SCO (fortunately!) and
not on Linux or any other OS. It's not good guys and bad guys who
provide operating systems: I don't make money from any of them. I
ONLY make money from customers who USE operating systems.
Now, at a much higher level, some moral and philosophical issues
do enter the debate: is Open Source a "good thing" for the world
in general? I'd say yes, but it is a point that can be argued. Is
the present state of patents, copyrights, DMCA legislation etc. "bad"
for innovation? I'd agree with Lawrence Lessig and say it definitely
is bad, but again, this is an area where people can disagree.
So: it's the customers that are important to me. It may or may
not be true that in the long run their best interests lie with
Open Source, but since that is a matter of opinion, it is up to
them to decide that. Their decisions will be both at the individual
level (shall I keep using SCO because they are suing IBM and
threatening Open Source) and at the political level (do I
care about the sate of patents, DMCA, etc.?).
It's not up to me to try to force my political opinions on them by
refusing to service or sell to them. That's THEIR choice, and I might
add it is also their choice whether or not they care to educate
themselves on these issues at all. In fact, most don't: they
have their own problems and concerns, and these rather lofty
political/moral concerns aren't of much interest to them. I don't
like that: I think that disinterest is what lets big business get
away with all that it is getting away with, but the same is true
of many political and moral issues: most folks don't care until
their ox gets gored.
Brian K. White
heh heh :)
evil joshua tree empire?
I think we need to work "joshua tree" in there somehow.
JamesDad
well-thought-out response, I think it's time to start breaking up this
thread.)
On 16 Nov 2003 07:02:14 -0800, br...@aljex.com (Brian K. White) wrote:
>> Though I will have to say, "The Evil Banana Empire" does have a certain
>> ring to it. ;-) I may use that expression in future posts. I kinda like
>> it.
>
>heh heh :)
>evil joshua tree empire?
>I think we need to work "joshua tree" in there somehow.
OK, I'll bite. What's the significance of a Joshua tree, esp. in relation
to this discussion? I just Googled it and found that it's a
desert-dwelling plant/tree and I knew that U2 had made an album called
"The Joshua Tree", but I'm not sure what the connection is with the Evil
Banana Empire other than Utah's a desert state. In such a case, the "Evil
Cactus Empire" would also apply, but in either case the connotations of
"banana republic" (small, usually run by a dictator) would be lost.
Educate me!
Tony Lawrence
>(Since Brian hasn't participated in this thread except for his one
>well-thought-out response, I think it's time to start breaking up this
>thread.)
>On 16 Nov 2003 07:02:14 -0800, br...@aljex.com (Brian K. White) wrote:
>>> Though I will have to say, "The Evil Banana Empire" does have a certain
>>> ring to it. ;-) I may use that expression in future posts. I kinda like
>>> it.
>>
>>heh heh :)
>>evil joshua tree empire?
>>I think we need to work "joshua tree" in there somehow.
>OK, I'll bite. What's the significance of a Joshua tree, esp. in relation
>to this discussion? I just Googled it and found that it's a
>desert-dwelling plant/tree and I knew that U2 had made an album called
>"The Joshua Tree", but I'm not sure what the connection is with the Evil
>Banana Empire other than Utah's a desert state. In such a case, the "Evil
>Cactus Empire" would also apply, but in either case the connotations of
>"banana republic" (small, usually run by a dictator) would be lost.
>Educate me!
SCO's logo is a tree. I dunno what kind of tree, but maybe it
can be a Joshua tree..
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>SCO's logo is a tree. I dunno what kind of tree, but maybe it
>can be a Joshua tree..
Isn't it a Cypress tree? There are two well known Cypress trees near
Santa Cruz that it could be, but I think an earlier poster suggested it
was intended to be the one at Point Lobos? The other one is at Pacific
Grove and is (or was) someone else's trademark.
On the other hand, since it is a stylized tree, it could be any tree,
anywhere.
Brian K. White
> JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >(Since Brian hasn't participated in this thread except for his one
> >well-thought-out response, I think it's time to start breaking up this
> >thread.)
>
> >On 16 Nov 2003 07:02:14 -0800, br...@aljex.com (Brian K. White) wrote:
>
> >>> Though I will have to say, "The Evil Banana Empire" does have a certain
> >>> ring to it. ;-) I may use that expression in future posts. I kinda like
> >>> it.
> >>
> >>heh heh :)
> >>evil joshua tree empire?
> >>I think we need to work "joshua tree" in there somehow.
>
> >OK, I'll bite. What's the significance of a Joshua tree, esp. in relation
> >to this discussion? I just Googled it and found that it's a
> >desert-dwelling plant/tree and I knew that U2 had made an album called
> >"The Joshua Tree", but I'm not sure what the connection is with the Evil
> >Banana Empire other than Utah's a desert state. In such a case, the "Evil
> >Cactus Empire" would also apply, but in either case the connotations of
> >"banana republic" (small, usually run by a dictator) would be lost.
>
> >Educate me!
>
> SCO's logo is a tree. I dunno what kind of tree, but maybe it
> can be a Joshua tree..
Joshua trees do grow around Santa Cruz, (noteworthy, because they
don't grow just anywhere) and I'm sure I read somewhere that that the
logo is a (granted, highly stylized, what logo isn't?) joshua tree.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:03:41 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>SCO's logo is a tree. I dunno what kind of tree, but maybe it
>>can be a Joshua tree..
>
>Isn't it a Cypress tree? There are two well known Cypress trees near
>Santa Cruz that it could be, but I think an earlier poster suggested it
>was intended to be the one at Point Lobos? The other one is at Pacific
>Grove and is (or was) someone else's trademark.
You're thinking of the one on 17 mile drive. Nope, not that one.
Also, there are cypress trees all along east and west cliff drive in
Santa Cruz.
>On the other hand, since it is a stylized tree, it could be any tree,
>anywhere.
It's a real cypress tree found on West Cliff Drive and Fair Ave. It's
the one on the left.
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=6577&mode=sequential&flags=0
This is becoming an FAQ. I'll take a better photo next time I'm in
the area and post the URL.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Brian K. White
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:10:17 GMT, j...@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:03:41 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
> ><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> >
> >>SCO's logo is a tree. I dunno what kind of tree, but maybe it
> >>can be a Joshua tree..
> >
> >Isn't it a Cypress tree? There are two well known Cypress trees near
> >Santa Cruz that it could be, but I think an earlier poster suggested it
> >was intended to be the one at Point Lobos? The other one is at Pacific
> >Grove and is (or was) someone else's trademark.
>
> You're thinking of the one on 17 mile drive. Nope, not that one.
> Also, there are cypress trees all along east and west cliff drive in
> Santa Cruz.
>
> >On the other hand, since it is a stylized tree, it could be any tree,
> >anywhere.
>
> It's a real cypress tree found on West Cliff Drive and Fair Ave. It's
> the one on the left.
>
> http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=6577&mode=sequential&flags=0
> This is becoming an FAQ. I'll take a better photo next time I'm in
> the area and post the URL.
Isn't it just great that our SCO systems run so well and are so
trouble-free that this silly logo discussion is my most pressing SCO
question in months? :) (and I don't just have one or two or under
fifty boxes i'm responsible for...)
I don't understand how these linux nuts have such effective blinders
on that they can't appreciate how extrememly, incalculably,
pricelessly valuable that is.
Joe Dunning
>Isn't it just great that our SCO systems run so well and are so
>trouble-free that this silly logo discussion is my most pressing SCO
>question in months? :) (and I don't just have one or two or under
>fifty boxes i'm responsible for...)
>
>I don't understand how these linux nuts have such effective blinders
>on that they can't appreciate how extrememly, incalculably,
>pricelessly valuable that is.
The issue is not about software -- it's about an unfounded lawsuit
and fradulent claims about Linux.
J. L. Schilling
>
> OK, I'll bite. What's the significance of a Joshua tree, esp. in relation
> to this discussion? I just Googled it and found that it's a
> desert-dwelling plant/tree and I knew that U2 had made an album called
> "The Joshua Tree", but I'm not sure what the connection is with the Evil
Bono seems to be an Apple fan and user, and appeared at a Steve Jobs
press conference recently to plug iTunes. Does this suggest he is
anti-free-file-sharing? Unclear; during the great Napster debates he
seemed to take the stance that U2 was already filthy rich, so a little
mp3 copying wasn't going to hurt them. He does object to bootlegging
of unreleased or not-yet-released studio material, as almost all
musicians do.
He also lost his laptop in a hotel back in 1999, one that contained a lot of
work-in-progress stuff for "All That You Can't Leave Behind". His offering
of a big reward for its recovery suggests he wasn't doing religious backups.
Probability that any member of U2 has ever heard of SCO: 0.000...1.
Jonathan Schilling
Brian K. White
If that is how you see it, then I wasn't talking about you and
hopefully you didn't think I was calling you a nut. :)
There are plenty who seem to be unable to seperate a peice of software
from the latest collection of owners who bought the peice of software
from the personal hygene habits of the gardener who tends the lawn in
front of the building that houses the offices of the latest collection
of owners of the piece of software ...
Joe Dunning
>j...@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning) wrote in message
news:<Ia8ub.173447$9E1.894992@attbi_s52>...
>> The issue is not about software -- it's about an unfounded lawsuit
>> and fradulent claims about Linux.
>
>If that is how you see it, then I wasn't talking about you and
>hopefully you didn't think I was calling you a nut. :)
>
>There are plenty who seem to be unable to seperate a peice of software
>from the latest collection of owners who bought the peice of software
>from the personal hygene habits of the gardener who tends the lawn in
>front of the building that houses the offices of the latest collection
>of owners of the piece of software ...
What other company talks about "investing" in lawyers and lawsuits? It's
quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
I would however suggest that anyone who is involved with the software
should consider how it will affect them. What is the future for software
developers and support engineers at SCO?
One more thing: since I believe that SCO is attempting a scam, I think
that those who bring revenue to SCO are supporting that scam.
Tony Lawrence
>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>I would however suggest that anyone who is involved with the software
>should consider how it will affect them. What is the future for software
>developers and support engineers at SCO?
>One more thing: since I believe that SCO is attempting a scam, I think
>that those who bring revenue to SCO are supporting that scam.
If their business model is litigation (and I'm not at all sure
you aren't right), then we'll see the end of them soon enough.
That doesn't change anything about the product though, or
change any of my feelings about supporting it and selling it
to customers who want and need it.
Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
litigation presently in progress? Good luck with that business
model, Joe: it won't get you very far.
Again: this is a political issue. Not every believes that the
SCO *product* is crapola that must immediately be replaced with
Linux. Not everyone believes that the PRODUCT is going to
disappear overnight even if Darl & Gang do turn out to be the
vampires you insist they are. If the litigation is to create
a market, and if someone bites, the product will continue, especially
now that RedHat only has paid versions (I think RedHat made a
dumb move, but that move will help companies like SCO and Sun).
If they go down in flames, the PRODUCT is still likely to be picked
up by someone. It's too damn popular to just throw away, especially
if it can be had for depressed prices.
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>
>>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>
>Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
>wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
>switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
>litigation presently in progress? Good luck with that business
>model, Joe: it won't get you very far.
I understand that. You are between a rock and a hard place.
Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that helping a customer to
buy new licenses is supporting SCO.
Ultimately, it's the client's decision -- but my point is that the
client should be fully appraised of the issues. Let the client make an
informed decision.
>
>Again: this is a political issue. Not every believes that the
>SCO *product* is crapola that must immediately be replaced with
>Linux.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, the main thing the
products have going for them is a number of applications that only run
on SCO's OSes?
I've seen comments about stability, but my own experience is that Linux
is equally stable.
Not everyone believes that the PRODUCT is going to
>disappear overnight even if Darl & Gang do turn out to be the
>vampires you insist they are. If the litigation is to create
>a market, and if someone bites, the product will continue, especially
>now that RedHat only has paid versions (I think RedHat made a
>dumb move, but that move will help companies like SCO and Sun).
Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I moved as many
boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think RedHat's decision will
affect Linux as a whole.
>
>If they go down in flames, the PRODUCT is still likely to be picked
>up by someone. It's too damn popular to just throw away, especially
>if it can be had for depressed prices.
But probably only to milk it for re-sale, maintenance, etc. I very much
doubt anyone would pick it up and agressively develop it.
Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
JamesDad
wrote:
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
Is that a surprise?
1) I remember hearing rumblings about that possibility a month ago.
2) At this point, I wouldn't put it past SCO to challenge the law of
gravity if it would help their "public relations" case and it could be in
any way associated with UNIX. Likewise I wouldn't put it past SCO to find
an excuse to sue the estate of Grace Hopper for the same reasons.
Heck, if they're going to challenge the GPL as unconstitutional, why not
go the whole nine yards? Challenge the Constitution (BSD Constitution?)
itself as an unlawful replacement of the Articles of Confederation (AT&T
System V Constitution?). After all, the Constitutional Convention was
convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, not to draft a new
constitution. Eliminate the power of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce along with some of the other powers that didn't exist before the
Constitution and SCO's got it made. Those folks are crazy enough to do
anything if it helps their PR case and especially if it
hurts/irritates/infuriates the open source community.
3) Considering the number of things they've threatened to do compared with
what they've actually done (and the ludicrous way they've been doing it),
I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
4) Anybody can challenge any darn (Darl?) thing they want to--having a
case and for a judge or jury to buy it is quite another.
Personally, what I'd like to see happen is for SCO to be bought out--in a
hostile takeover (with extreme prejudice) followed by Darl & Co. being
pitched headlong out of the building.
In the meantime, Don't Miss Darl McBride--aim carefully. With a Belgian
Cream Pie. ;-)
Tony Lawrence
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>>
>>>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>>
>>Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
>>wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
>>switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
>>litigation presently in progress? Good luck with that business
>>model, Joe: it won't get you very far.
>I understand that. You are between a rock and a hard place.
>Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that helping a customer to
>buy new licenses is supporting SCO.
>Ultimately, it's the client's decision -- but my point is that the
>client should be fully appraised of the issues. Let the client make an
>informed decision.
OK. And who has said that we DON'T let the client make an informed decision?
Am I supposed to have a questionaire for every potential client?
>>
>>Again: this is a political issue. Not every believes that the
>>SCO *product* is crapola that must immediately be replaced with
>>Linux.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, the main thing the
>products have going for them is a number of applications that only run
>on SCO's OSes?
>I've seen comments about stability, but my own experience is that Linux
>is equally stable.
Well, I have to tell you that's ALMOST true, but not quite. Linux is,
in my opinion, quite stable enough though. But yes, the main problem
is the cost of switching. It's mostly time of course, but it does add up.
>Not everyone believes that the PRODUCT is going to
>>disappear overnight even if Darl & Gang do turn out to be the
>>vampires you insist they are. If the litigation is to create
>>a market, and if someone bites, the product will continue, especially
>>now that RedHat only has paid versions (I think RedHat made a
>>dumb move, but that move will help companies like SCO and Sun).
>Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I moved as many
>boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think RedHat's decision will
>affect Linux as a whole.
I think you are wrong.
>>
>>If they go down in flames, the PRODUCT is still likely to be picked
>>up by someone. It's too damn popular to just throw away, especially
>>if it can be had for depressed prices.
>But probably only to milk it for re-sale, maintenance, etc. I very much
>doubt anyone would pick it up and agressively develop it.
Either way. Doesn't change what I do, does it?
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
Oh goody :-(
Tony Lawrence
>Personally, what I'd like to see happen is for SCO to be bought out--in a
>hostile takeover (with extreme prejudice) followed by Darl & Co. being
>pitched headlong out of the building.
No argument from me on that one..
Bill Campbell
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>>
>>>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>>
>>Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
>>wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
>>switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
>>litigation presently in progress? Good luck with that business
>>model, Joe: it won't get you very far.
>
>I understand that. You are between a rock and a hard place.
>Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that helping a customer to
>buy new licenses is supporting SCO.
A question comes to mind. I don't have copies of the SCO EULAs
around for OpenServer 5.0.[0-6], and wonder if there's anything
in them preventing the transfer of old licenses. I would guess
that there are a metric tonne of sites around that have stopped
running OpenServer, and would be willing to sell their licenses
(or perhaps give them away :-) rather than buying them from SCO.
...
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, the main thing the
>products have going for them is a number of applications that only run
>on SCO's OSes?
That's certainly the case as I see it. We're currently replacing an old
ODT 3.0 system with OpenServer 5.0.6a where the old system was destroyed in
a fire (hard drive smelled smokey, but the data was fine). They have an
old FilePro application with some external programs that are written in C,
compiled for 286 Xenix, and the source code isn't available. This will run
on OpenServer, but not on Linux -- unless it's a truly ancient version with
iBCS support for 286 binaries. The customer has a choice of spending a lot
of money to rewrite their application, or run it for a couple of years on
OpenServer until they retire when they will no longer need the system.
>I've seen comments about stability, but my own experience is that Linux
>is equally stable.
That's my experience as well.
>Not everyone believes that the PRODUCT is going to
>>disappear overnight even if Darl & Gang do turn out to be the
>>vampires you insist they are. If the litigation is to create
>>a market, and if someone bites, the product will continue, especially
>>now that RedHat only has paid versions (I think RedHat made a
>>dumb move, but that move will help companies like SCO and Sun).
>
>Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I moved as many
>boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think RedHat's decision will
>affect Linux as a whole.
We moved from Caldera to SuSE almost a year ago, and have always stayed
away from RH because they seemed to frequently release systems before they
were ready, often with serious dependency problems.
>>
>>If they go down in flames, the PRODUCT is still likely to be picked
>>up by someone. It's too damn popular to just throw away, especially
>>if it can be had for depressed prices.
>
>But probably only to milk it for re-sale, maintenance, etc. I very much
>doubt anyone would pick it up and agressively develop it.
>
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
That would be amusing and interesting if it results in the records being
unsealed.
There was a very interesting article in the Register regarding a recent SCO
filing with the SEC.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34049.html
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
When the customer has beaten upon you long enough, give him what he asks
for, instead of what he needs. This is very strong medicine, and is
normally only required once.
-- The Consultant's Curse:
Joe Dunning
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, what I'd like to see happen is for SCO to be bought out--in a
>hostile takeover (with extreme prejudice) followed by Darl & Co. being
>pitched headlong out of the building.
Personally, I think that would be a very bad move -- since Darl & Co.
would be heading out of the door with a large sum of money. They should
not be rewarded for their actions.
JamesDad
wrote:
From a HOSTILE takeover? Maybe I just don't understand that aspect of
business. I can see your point if it were a "friendly" takeover, such as
selling out to Novell (which option they've just burned their bridges
on--see <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1387693,00.asp>). But I
would have thought that in a hostile takeover situation, their options for
a "golden parachute" exit would be much more limited or nonexistent. Guess
there are some things about business I have yet to learn.
Scott Burns
>Personally, what I'd like to see happen is for SCO to be bought out--in a
>hostile takeover (with extreme prejudice) followed by Darl & Co. being
>pitched headlong out of the building.
>
>
>
IIRC The SCO Group are majority owned by The Canopy Group and TCG is
majority owned by a single person making a hostile takeover impossible.
I seem to recall this being discussed early on as an easy + cheap way
for IBM to buy themselves out of trouble.
Personally, I think the best outcome is for everything to get to
court, the GPL to be upheld, all claims against Linux to be found false,
and for appropriate penalties against SCO. But right or wrong ( and I
firmly beleive wrong ), I don't think SCO will let it go that easily...
--
Scott Burns
Mirrabooka Systems
Tel +61 7 3857 7899
Fax +61 7 3857 1368
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>What other company talks about "investing" in lawyers and lawsuits? It's
>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
Is that a quote? I tried various google searches with SCO invest or
investing, and lawyers or lawsuits, and found nothing. Did I miss
something?
>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
I guess you've never been involved in litigation. Everyone lies,
except when under oath. Under oath, they "can't recall".
>I would however suggest that anyone who is involved with the software
>should consider how it will affect them. What is the future for software
>developers and support engineers at SCO?
Fairly lousy. Same with any other operating system. Most of my
friends in the software biz are either unemployed, going broke, or
finding investment capital impossible to find. Even without the
litigation, methinks SCO developers and support personalities would be
in trouble.
>One more thing: since I believe that SCO is attempting a scam, I think
>that those who bring revenue to SCO are supporting that scam.
Good thinking. We bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age using
that logic. Never mind the issues and perpetrators, let's attack the
proponents and supporters.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Ultimately, it's the client's decision -- but my point is that the
>client should be fully appraised of the issues. Let the client make an
>informed decision.
Good point. Let the customers decide. I currently have 12 commerical
customers using SCO products. In addition, I share support on about 6
more. How many of them have asked me about the current litigatory
exercises? How many would you suspect have decided to abandon SCO
solely on the basis of politix? How many have announced some kind of
"abandon SCO" policy or strategy? How many would you guess even
understand the issues involved? (Hint: It starts with "z").
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, the main thing the
>products have going for them is a number of applications that only run
>on SCO's OSes?
Close. Most of my customers have purchased vertical market
applications, where the software vendor specifies the operating
system. The selection of operating system is totally dependent upon
the vendors ability to support and test on the operating system.
Usually, it's also specific to a particular version and patch level.
Moving to Linux has always been an option, but unless the software
vendor is willing to support their product on some Linux mutation, it
won't happen.
>I've seen comments about stability, but my own experience is that Linux
>is equally stable.
I have about 13 years of experience with SCO products, most of which
were quite stable (after a few releases, updates, fixes, and patches).
I've played with Linux since 1.2.something, and had various disasters
(EXT2 trashout on power fail, library incompatibilities, etc).
However, the present Linux incantations (mostly SUSE) are quite stable
and run well. The difference is that I can walk up to an Open Server
installation and find myself immediately familiar with the system.
All OSR5 boxes look approximately the same. Everything is always in
the same places. There may be 13,000 symlinks, but there all the same
in all versions. I can't say the same for Linux. I usually walk up
to a Linux box, login, and spend the next few days trying to figure
out where the parts and pieces are buried, what the installed was
thinking, and why have they done this to me. Yeah, I guess they're
both quite stable, as long as I don't have to change or do anything.
>Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I moved as many
>boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think RedHat's decision will
>affect Linux as a whole.
I've been playing with Gentoo. Pre-ported ource only distribution has
its merits. Automounts FAT32/NTFS drives. I use the bootable cdrom
as a diagnostic aid for unbootable Linux systems and for breaking into
Windoze systems that won't boot.
In my never humble opinion, methinks that Red Hat's decision to
essentially abandon (i.e. declare obsolete) everything they've sold in
the past is gonna seriously irritate their existing customers. It
won't take much to determine that their strategy is to develop a
"relationship" with their customers which amounts to paying RH some
dollar amount each year. I didn't mind the $5/month server update
fee. I do mind buying a new package every year. I dunno how Fedora
is gonna fit into this puzzle. My guess is that it constitutes a
threat to their retail sales and will tend to be somewhat behind on
new technologies and ports.
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
Sigh. Anything to keep the SCO name in the financial news.
Bill Vermillion
Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
That should be interesting. Since the settlement was made
before SCO acquired the code it doesn't seem like they have any
stake in that.
And the agreement was between the Regents and AT&T. That was
because AT&T went after BSDI.
As I recall all the AT&T code was stripped from the Berkeley
Software Distribution - and that left you with a lot of code but a
system which could not be booted. That was the 4.4-Lite
distribution.
BSDI - formed by ex-CSRG people then implemented a commercial
version, while Jolitz and his wife started writing '386 code
to make a system that could be booted and run.
When AT&T went after BSDI then Jolitz stopped and a lot stagnated.
But after that was settled BSDI continued. Jolitz had given up and
finally after waiting a year or so the group that got FreeBSD going
started working on that to bring it about - then Theo started
OpenBSD and someone else started NetBSD.
BUT - about this time all the source code for all the BSD's up
through BSD 4.3 [the last release prior to the 4.4 Lite was made
available for home/hobby use >PROVIDED< you got a license for that
code from SCO. At that time SCO was charging $100 for the
paperwork to process that license. The sources were available
from TUHG and from later from McKusick.
Then SCO loosened things up. They permitted the Lyons Commentary
with the Unix version 6 code to be published - by Peer to Peer
Publications - now out of print and commanding well over $100
for the copy I saw on one the Amazon Z-shops.
At that same time SCO dropped the $100 fee and anyone could get a
license by going to the SCO site and printing out the copy. You
still had to fill out some information and get a registration
number, and then you could get the code. It was also available
on 4 CDs as "The CSRG Archives".
When Caldera purchased SCO they extended the license to cover more
'ancient Unix code' and that was free. I have a licensce for that
- complete with the Caldera logo.
So I can see there can be some problems trying to restrict code
which had been available basically for the taking from the people
who owned the code.
None of this code would be part of the IBM section where they are
accused of violating trade secrets as these had been published
openly under the auspices of SCO and later Caldera.
A comment on the SCO/IBM/Linux story at one point said you could
not inadvertantly give copyrights away by accidentally including
that under the GPL in Linux.
But the older code - including that shown at the SCO trade show -
is quite old - under the BSD license which SCO had given out
freely.
I would think all this would be problematic if they wished to go
after the BSD code.
And of course if they do this that means they take on Apple too
as the current OS/X has a lot of the FreeBSD 5 code, while the
10.2 was a 4.2 release.
And there was much BSD code given to the world that was not AT&T
'tainted' long before BSD was made into the 4.4-Lite. TCP/IP for
example.
I think they would have a much more difficult time going after any
of that code - since it wasn't SysV code to start with - than they
do going after IBM or other licensees who are accused of violating
contracts and publishing trade secrets.
Bill
Wh
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:30:08 GMT, j...@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
>wrote:
>I have about 13 years of experience with SCO products, most of which
>were quite stable (after a few releases, updates, fixes, and patches).
>I've played with Linux since 1.2.something, and had various disasters
>(EXT2 trashout on power fail, library incompatibilities, etc).
>However, the present Linux incantations (mostly SUSE) are quite stable
>and run well. The difference is that I can walk up to an Open Server
>installation and find myself immediately familiar with the system.
>All OSR5 boxes look approximately the same. Everything is always in
>the same places. There may be 13,000 symlinks, but there all the same
>in all versions. I can't say the same for Linux. I usually walk up
>to a Linux box, login, and spend the next few days trying to figure
>out where the parts and pieces are buried, what the installed was
>thinking, and why have they done this to me. Yeah, I guess they're
>both quite stable, as long as I don't have to change or do anything.
I have the same feeling about LInux systems looking different.
However I'll expand on the OSR5 and just say that all standard
Sys III and later SysV system all tend to look quite similar.
I've been able to figure out most problems in a relatively short
period of time. Along the line have been NCRs with something that
was pre-System III, NCRs with III and V, and Onyx with a V3 on a
Z8000 CPU, a genunine Motorola Unix machine - big box - with a V2,
and iNTEL machine with iNTEL Unix or Xenix - the only one that in
the manual fully explained why the sync;sync;sync was used, and
I've forgotten the details.
But on those if you haven't seen it before you try your standard
command and get an error - along the lines of 'cant find xxxx'
or 'cant execute yyy' so you run man xxxx or man yyy, and in
15-20 minutes you find out what it is all about.
OTOH I've run the man on some Linux systems and the files indicated
in the man pages are not where the man pages said they were, as the
man pages were just copied from elsewhere with global search and
replace. Granted that good man pages are hard to keep up to date,
but I think the FILES section should have at least the right
names in them.
As to 'what was the installer thinking' - I've seen this on almost
all systems, not just Linux, and I've come to the conclusion that
in a great many case the installer wasn't thinking but just doing
something he was told. A SW person modifyin and ap at a client I
had changed something and when I called him on it the reply
was "the people in Texas told me to do it like that". [That's where
the program vendor had their support].
I find he'd diddle with the PATH statements, and do bizarre chmods,
and I'd put everything back. He and I had some strong words at one
time. It wasn't that he wasn't thinking - he was just doing by
rote what some person told hin to do over the phone to make it
work.
>>Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I
>>moved as many boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think
>>RedHat's decision will affect Linux as a whole.
>I've been playing with Gentoo. Pre-ported ource only distribution has
>its merits. Automounts FAT32/NTFS drives. I use the bootable cdrom
>as a diagnostic aid for unbootable Linux systems and for breaking into
>Windoze systems that won't boot.
That ports and source is why I like the FreeBSD enviornment so
much. Once you get used to that process you never want to see
a file with an rpm extent on the screen again.
>In my never humble opinion, methinks that Red Hat's decision to
>essentially abandon (i.e. declare obsolete) everything they've sold in
>the past is gonna seriously irritate their existing customers. It
>won't take much to determine that their strategy is to develop a
>"relationship" with their customers which amounts to paying RH some
>dollar amount each year. I didn't mind the $5/month server update
>fee. I do mind buying a new package every year.
I didn't read it like that. I interpreted it as renewing your
license each year and that you never really bought anything but a
license to run the package for one year. Reminds me of SW from a
long time ago.
>I dunno how Fedora is gonna fit into this puzzle. My guess is
>that it constitutes a threat to their retail sales and will tend
>to be somewhat behind on new technologies and ports.
It looks like Fedora will be user supported - IOW back to the roots
of Linux.
Bill
Joe Dunning
wrote:
>In article <4ruub.180831$275.581873@attbi_s53>,
>Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
>
>That should be interesting. Since the settlement was made
>before SCO acquired the code it doesn't seem like they have any
>stake in that.
>
On thinking about it a little more: didn't the USL/BSD case revolve
around the 32V code? An wasn't it the 32V code that Caldera released
with no restrictions some years back?
So it's really hard to see how there is any benefit to SCO from opening
up the USL/BSD case, except for more FUD and another failed attempt to
pump up the stock.
Joe Dunning
wrote:
>I have the same feeling about LInux systems looking different.
>However I'll expand on the OSR5 and just say that all standard
>Sys III and later SysV system all tend to look quite similar.
RMS' original vision for software is "freedom": freedom to modify as you
choose. Linux follows this model and there are multiple distributions
with differerent characteristics. Even within a distro, there are
different packages that can be installed to perform the same function.
Once again, freedom and choice. The downside is that if you were not the
person who made the choices, you may not like the the result.
Another factor is that GPL software is rapidly evolving. With that
evolution comes more disruption, but it also brings new capabilities.
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
Well, the way I see it, the sooner SCO runs out of means to pay the
lawyers, the better!
Bill Vermillion
Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:05:06 GMT, Bill Vermillion <b...@wjv.comREMOVE>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4ruub.180831$275.581873@attbi_s53>,
>>Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>>>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
>>
>>That should be interesting. Since the settlement was made
>>before SCO acquired the code it doesn't seem like they have any
>>stake in that.
>>
>On thinking about it a little more: didn't the USL/BSD case revolve
>around the 32V code? An wasn't it the 32V code that Caldera released
>with no restrictions some years back?
That's exactly how I recall it - but I'd have to go look at the
license again - it's in a stack of about 2000 pieces that I'm
re-filing.
>So it's really hard to see how there is any benefit to SCO from
>opening up the USL/BSD case, except for more FUD and another
>failed attempt to pump up the stock.
I agree with the first part - but all I see on the latter part of
that statements are speculations. If someone could prove this was
done to inflate stock prices then SCO could be in serious trouble,
given the fact that finally stock trading is being looked at
closely after all the publicity surround the Enron, MCI/Worldcom,
Martha Stewart et al.
Bill
Bill Campbell
>In article <4ruub.180831$275.581873@attbi_s53>,
>Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
>
>That should be interesting. Since the settlement was made
>before SCO acquired the code it doesn't seem like they have any
>stake in that.
>As I recall all the AT&T code was stripped from the Berkeley
>Software Distribution - and that left you with a lot of code but a
>system which could not be booted. That was the 4.4-Lite
>distribution.
There were two sides to this. I've read that AT&T was found to have
incorporated significant amounts of Berkeley code in SYSV, removing the BSD
copyright notices in violation of the BSD license.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``We shouldn't elect a President; we should elect a magician.''
Will Rogers
JamesDad
wrote:
>A question comes to mind. I don't have copies of the SCO EULAs
>around for OpenServer 5.0.[0-6], and wonder if there's anything
>in them preventing the transfer of old licenses. I would guess
>that there are a metric tonne of sites around that have stopped
>running OpenServer, and would be willing to sell their licenses
>(or perhaps give them away :-) rather than buying them from SCO.
Bill, if you ever find out it's OK and find someone willing to give a
license or two (with a manual and media) to someone who's wanting to learn
UNIX during his downtime (I'm presently dealing with a long-term battle
with medical depression and living on SSDI--my ability to follow up is
slow, but my intellect is still sharp as a tack), let me know. All I ask
is that the version of OpenServer (or UnixWare) be able to run on an Intel
box or a Macintosh (PPC or 68K) or else that they offer an old server
they're not using so I can run the thing. All I can offer is shipping, a
good home, gratitude and the satisfaction that they're preparing someone
to get back into the job market when I'm able to.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, the main thing the
>>products have going for them is a number of applications that only run
>>on SCO's OSes?
Ditto for apps. I'm thinking more of general apps that I could learn on
rather than highly-specific vertical apps, but I'll take what I can learn
on.
Thanks,
JamesDad
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>RMS' original vision for software is "freedom": freedom to modify as you
>choose. Linux follows this model and there are multiple distributions
>with differerent characteristics. Even within a distro, there are
>different packages that can be installed to perform the same function.
>Once again, freedom and choice. The downside is that if you were not the
>person who made the choices, you may not like the the result.
>
>Another factor is that GPL software is rapidly evolving. With that
>evolution comes more disruption, but it also brings new capabilities.
Exactly. Now, ask any business owner how they would feel about such a
product. When I was designing radios, we called it "Progress Thru
Never Ending Change". It drove the customers nuts. They wanted
stability, out of the box functionality, and limited professional
labour. Plug, play, and never see a tech. When they wanted more
features and functions, they would just get the latest incantation,
and not mess with the previous model. Same logic with computahs. I
even have customers that refuse to let me install patches and fixes
for fear of the potentially resultant downtime. Disruption is bad for
business.
As for creative installs, I'm as guilty as the average hacker. I grew
up with SCO products and the /u partition for user stuff. So, I
butchered Linux /user into looking like what I'm familiar with (so
that I don't have to re-scribble all my scripts). Worse, I wasn't
very consistant about creating /u and /user symlinks. Some
applications insist on living in /usr, which makes backups awkward.
I've seen some rather creative Linux installs. My favorite is the
former Windoze hack, that created application directory trees full of
spaces and odd characters. I'm currently cleaning up one mess that
has src, lib, and bin existing under /, /usr, /u, /local, and probably
some other places I haven't found. Little wonder nothing will
compile. Yech.
The price of progress is change. Ask the business owner if he wants
to pay the price.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
JamesDad
wrote:
>>Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>>>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
>>
>There were two sides to this. I've read that AT&T was found to have
>incorporated significant amounts of Berkeley code in SYSV, removing the BSD
>copyright notices in violation of the BSD license.
If The Yapping Chihuahua pursues this challenge, it should make for an
interesting discovery phase. Since there are a number of allegations
(supposedly by present and/or former SCO employees) in circulation that
Linux code was inappropriately copied into UnixWare and/or OpenServer,
their entire code base could be subject to subpoena and subsequently run
thru the Comparator. WHOOPS! Let Boies try to argue that they were simply
incorporating a "derived work" back into their product. ;-p~~~~
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>In article <4ruub.180831$275.581873@attbi_s53>,
>>Joe Dunning <joedunning12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>>>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
>>
>>That should be interesting. Since the settlement was made
>>before SCO acquired the code it doesn't seem like they have any
>>stake in that.
>...
>>As I recall all the AT&T code was stripped from the Berkeley
>>Software Distribution - and that left you with a lot of code but a
>>system which could not be booted. That was the 4.4-Lite
>>distribution.
>There were two sides to this. I've read that AT&T was found
>to have incorporated significant amounts of Berkeley code in
>SYSV, removing the BSD copyright notices in violation of the BSD
>license.
And the AT&T suit was against BSDI - with the old CSRG members.
I don't think it involved the Lite code. The settlement was
because after AT&T sued BSDI [which was bought by Wind River]
The Regents sued AT&T because of the stripped copyrights. Then the
settlement was made.
Joe Dunning
According to what I have read, the settlement came after the judge
indicated that AT&T had little chance of defending its copyrights on the
32V code.
>
>
Joe Dunning
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:01:25 GMT, j...@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:59:27 GMT, JamesDad
>><mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>Personally, what I'd like to see happen is for SCO to be bought out--in a
>>>hostile takeover (with extreme prejudice) followed by Darl & Co. being
>>>pitched headlong out of the building.
>>
>>Personally, I think that would be a very bad move -- since Darl & Co.
>>would be heading out of the door with a large sum of money. They should
>>not be rewarded for their actions.
>
>From a HOSTILE takeover? Maybe I just don't understand that aspect of
>business. I can see your point if it were a "friendly" takeover, such as
>selling out to Novell (which option they've just burned their bridges
>on--see <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1387693,00.asp>). But I
>would have thought that in a hostile takeover situation, their options for
>a "golden parachute" exit would be much more limited or nonexistent. Guess
>there are some things about business I have yet to learn.
1. Hostile takeovers ususally drive up the stock price. The present
owners would benefit from this.
2. Why should a takeover affect employment contracts that Darl and
others have? One of the main reasons to have a golden parachute is to
protect the employee (usually a senior exec) in the case of hostile
actions (takeover, dismissal by the board, etc.).
FyRE
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>>
>>>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>>
>>Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
>>wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
>>switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
>>litigation presently in progress?
Notice here how Tony neatly labels anyone who doesn't believe the SCO
"litigation" (some would say fraud) is a great idea as a zealot. I
think we can finally see the side of the fence Tony has picked ;-)
>>Again: this is a political issue.
It's not a political issue. It's a question of right and wrong,
period. SCO are currently violating licenses and distributing other
people's work without their permission. They are attacking the very
people who provide them with essential tools, and somehow managing to
avoid an SEC investigation despite blatant stock pumping/dumping.
Mind you, I suppose politics and criminal activities are pretty
closely linked, so maybe it wasn't a bad analogy ;-)
[...]
>>a market, and if someone bites, the product will continue, especially
>>now that RedHat only has paid versions (I think RedHat made a
>>dumb move, but that move will help companies like SCO and Sun).
>
>Well, there are many alternatives to RedHat. Personally, I moved as many
>boxes as possible over to Gentoo. I don't think RedHat's decision will
>affect Linux as a whole.
As someone who recently took the RHCE exam (hopefully I passed), I can
tell you that Tony has made yet another categorically untrue
statement. Redhat maintain the Fedora project, which is free. The
currently lineup of products are simply being renamed. Redhat will
still be working on Fedora, as well as the enterprise versions of
Linux. (I also use Gentoo and SuSE, BTW). In my opinion, RH's focus on
their enterprise products will not harm them at all. From what I
gather, this was a direct response to customer demands - companies
WANT to pay for support. Maybe it's wrongheaded, but a lot of the
purseholders cannot seem to get their head around the possibility that
you can get an enterprise level OS for free!
>>If they go down in flames, the PRODUCT is still likely to be picked
>>up by someone. It's too damn popular to just throw away, especially
>>if it can be had for depressed prices.
>
>But probably only to milk it for re-sale, maintenance, etc. I very much
>doubt anyone would pick it up and agressively develop it.
>
>Incidentally, I don't know if you have seen the results of the
>teleconference: SCO is going to challenge the BSD/USL settlement.
Nothing these idiots do surprises me any more. SCO still haven't
actually specified their claims against IBM yet, despite constant
requests to provide details. Anyone with a case would surely have
shown at least some (credible) evidence before now. The only thing
that does surprise me is that the judge is letting the charade drag
on...
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
Tony Lawrence
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:30:08 GMT, j...@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>quite clear what SCO's business model is: litigation. Not software.
>>>
>>>>SCO has made the sole important issue the litigation, the FUD, the scam.
>>>
>>>Just what would you do with a client happily running on SCO who
>>>wants to upgrade or add user licenses? Tell him, no, you have to
>>>switch to Linux because a bunch of Linux zealots don't like the
>>>litigation presently in progress?
>Notice here how Tony neatly labels anyone who doesn't believe the SCO
>"litigation" (some would say fraud) is a great idea as a zealot. I
>think we can finally see the side of the fence Tony has picked ;-)
Wrong. You are so blind..
All of the people who think SCO is perpetrating a fraud aren't
Linux zealots. Most of the Linux zealots do think that though, and
that's why I phrased the question: should my customer incur expenses
just because you and a bunch of other jackasses insist that he should?
You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
>>>Again: this is a political issue.
>It's not a political issue. It's a question of right and wrong,
Right and wrong is always a political issue.
JamesDad
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
>http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
Tony, I'm honored to be quoted in your blog, but wouldn't an attribution
be appropriate? I'm referring to:
"Since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the support of a
legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad guys", a
collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal threats,
an enemy of Linux and of open source software."
which I originally wrote in one of my posts in the thread "Re: Brian, I'm
Just Curious..." Don't want you to be accused of stealing "wetware code".
:-)
JamesDad
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:44:57 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
>>http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
>
>Tony, I'm honored to be quoted in your blog, but wouldn't an attribution
>be appropriate? I'm referring to:
>
>"Since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the support of a
>legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad guys", a
>collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal threats,
>an enemy of Linux and of open source software."
>
>which I originally wrote in one of my posts in the thread "Re: Brian, I'm
>Just Curious..." Don't want you to be accused of stealing "wetware code".
>:-)
P.S. If you add an attribution, please make it clear that the comment is
my ANALYSIS, not my OPINION. Thanks.
Tony Lawrence
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:44:57 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
>>http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
>Tony, I'm honored to be quoted in your blog, but wouldn't an attribution
>be appropriate? I'm referring to:
>"Since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the support of a
>legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad guys", a
>collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal threats,
>an enemy of Linux and of open source software."
>which I originally wrote in one of my posts in the thread "Re: Brian, I'm
>Just Curious..." Don't want you to be accused of stealing "wetware code".
>:-)
Well, I had thought about attributing it to you, but that would have
made it look like you held that opinion, and to explain that you
were only noting what someone else might say seemed to be more
trouble than it was worth.
I suppose now Fyre or some other jackass is going to go ballistic
because I'm "stealing words".
Tony Lawrence
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:56:47 GMT, JamesDad
><mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:44:57 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
>>>http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
>>
>>Tony, I'm honored to be quoted in your blog, but wouldn't an attribution
>>be appropriate? I'm referring to:
>>
>>"Since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the support of a
>>legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad guys", a
>>collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal threats,
>>an enemy of Linux and of open source software."
>>
>>which I originally wrote in one of my posts in the thread "Re: Brian, I'm
>>Just Curious..." Don't want you to be accused of stealing "wetware code".
>>:-)
>P.S. If you add an attribution, please make it clear that the comment is
>my ANALYSIS, not my OPINION. Thanks.
If you think it's important, you can add it yourself; most of my pages
allow comments.
JamesDad
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:44:57 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>You might be right, of course, but it's their decision:
>>>http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html
>
>>Tony, I'm honored to be quoted in your blog, but wouldn't an attribution
>>be appropriate? I'm referring to:
>
>>"Since you are enabling SCO to gain revenue (even through the support of a
>>legitimate product), you are by default one of the "bad guys", a
>>collaborator with SCO and a supporter of their lawsuits and legal threats,
>>an enemy of Linux and of open source software."
>
>>which I originally wrote in one of my posts in the thread "Re: Brian, I'm
>>Just Curious..." Don't want you to be accused of stealing "wetware code".
>>:-)
>
>Well, I had thought about attributing it to you, but that would have
>made it look like you held that opinion, and to explain that you
>were only noting what someone else might say seemed to be more
>trouble than it was worth.
>
>I suppose now Fyre or some other jackass is going to go ballistic
>because I'm "stealing words".
Well, to head that off at the pass, as the author of the quote in
question, I'll say that it's not THAT big of a deal. You DID at least put
the quote in italics, distinguishing it from what you wrote, which is
comparable to the guidelines you request of others when quoting your
stuff. Plus you posted the URL here so that I'd have a decent chance of
being aware of it. And it's not like you're profiting commercially from
the use of my comment. Given that, I'm not going to worry about it. It was
nice to me to see my writing style appreciated. And if "I'm* not worried
about it, then the others don't have much cause to squawk.
FyRE
> I suppose now Fyre or some other jackass is going to go ballistic
> because I'm "stealing words".
I believe information should be free, Tony. Do as you will. Of course, if
I were SCO, I'd be hiring lawyers now to set up some ludicrous slide
presentation showing how you blatantly copied parts of my intellectual
property into your HTML "code" and claiming 3 billion dollars in damages
(with my little finger in the corner of my mouth as I say that last part ;-)
J. L. Schilling
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:05:55 +0000, Tony Lawrence wrote:
>
There's an interesting description of the lineage of
"Information wants to be Free", including the above
"... should be free" variation, at
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html.
It's instructive to note that the original formulations always
included a second part: Information also wants to be expensive,
because it's so valuable. Therein lies the tension....
Jonathan Schilling
Tony Lawrence
But is it still valuable?
If you read about gifting societies, they are only possible
when food etc. is cheap and easy. Information used to be much
harder to obtain than it is today, both in terms of direct
access and in the myriad ways it is presented (the cost of
finding it at all and the cost of understanding it once you
find it).
The same is true of programming: speed and cheap storage makes
programming easier and therefore less expensive. Programs that
once could only be written in assembly language now run
quite reasonably in Perl.
There's also the matter that once you start sharing information,
the cost of additional information or programs can become less
because of what has already been done. I think we're seeing that
with Linux rather plainly right now, but I suspect we're only
at the beginning.
My long term bet is that Open Source software WILL drive all
but the very best commercial software out of the marketplace.
It won't be that you cannot compete with Open Source, but
it will take tremendous resources to do so.
Bill Campbell
>J. L. Schilling <jlsels...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>FyRE <Fy...@here-and-there.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.23....@here-and-there.invalid>...
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:05:55 +0000, Tony Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe information should be free, Tony. Do as you will. [...]
>
>>There's an interesting description of the lineage of
>>"Information wants to be Free", including the above
>>"... should be free" variation, at
>>http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html.
>
>>It's instructive to note that the original formulations always
>>included a second part: Information also wants to be expensive,
>>because it's so valuable. Therein lies the tension....
>
>But is it still valuable?
>
>If you read about gifting societies, they are only possible
>when food etc. is cheap and easy. Information used to be much
>harder to obtain than it is today, both in terms of direct
>access and in the myriad ways it is presented (the cost of
>finding it at all and the cost of understanding it once you
>find it).
In a keynote speach at an SCO Forum several years ago, John Perry Barlow
made the point that it's not the wine that's being sold but the packaging.
Before Guttenberg invented the printing press books had to be manually
copied, and were thus expensive.
Another aspect of information is that there are many people who really
don't like free access to information, crooked politicians (but I repeat
myself), newspapers, broadcast media who don't want competition. Remember,
the victors write the history books and run the government schools.
>The same is true of programming: speed and cheap storage makes
>programming easier and therefore less expensive. Programs that
>once could only be written in assembly language now run
>quite reasonably in Perl.
>
>There's also the matter that once you start sharing information,
>the cost of additional information or programs can become less
>because of what has already been done. I think we're seeing that
>with Linux rather plainly right now, but I suspect we're only
>at the beginning.
>
>My long term bet is that Open Source software WILL drive all
>but the very best commercial software out of the marketplace.
>It won't be that you cannot compete with Open Source, but
>it will take tremendous resources to do so.
The biggest advantage of open source is the huge pool of resources
available to solve problems. Any commercial vendor has to allocate
resources according to some set of priorities, and it's unlikely that their
priorities are the same as mine. With open source I can dig in to solve my
particular problem now, and don't have to wait for the vendor to get a
round tuit.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed.''
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
FyRE
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
[...]
>My long term bet is that Open Source software WILL drive all
>but the very best commercial software out of the marketplace.
>It won't be that you cannot compete with Open Source, but
>it will take tremendous resources to do so.
That's the dream. However, the problem (in my view) is that there's a
lot of money being thrown at US politicians, encouraging them to clamp
down on free thought, exchange of ideas and the horrendous idea of
distributing your own work for others to use, for free. In fact, this
seems to be the (current) focus of SCO's case. The dastardly
OpenSource movement, giving away it's code to other likeminded people,
but not allowing Darl, BillG and co to steal it away for themselves. I
think this has been a big driving force behind DRM. A company like MS
could (and will) patent some basic system or protocol, DRM it, to
prevent reverse engineering and interoperability with OS software.
The fact the US patent system is almost certainly going to infect
Europe and destroy a lot of companies is my biggest fear at the
moment. If anyone has seen the ridiculously broad patents waiting in
the wings, then it's easy to see these will stymie development for any
company who can't foot huge legal bills along the development path
unless they cripple their projects from the outset. The problem is
that the patent lawyers are exterting such presure on our
ignorant/greedy politicians to push this system through. More business
for them, less innovation for us.
That's my view; OS has a rocky road ahead, but hopefully litigeous
asshole companies such as SCO will crumble away over time and give
people the freedom of choice, and the freedom to write software they
wish for.
FyRE
wrote:
[...]
>priorities are the same as mine. With open source I can dig in to solve my
>particular problem now, and don't have to wait for the vendor to get a
>round tuit.
Well said. A very good example of this is Internet Explorer. Microsoft
illegally garnered a 90% monopoly over the browser market, and since
that time, virtually all improvement in their browser has ceased. Bugs
still exist from years ago (PNG rendering, no way to prevent pop-up
ads, etc, etc). Whereas all the real innovations have taken place with
the other browsers, mostly in fact from the Open Source Mozilla
projects. I've personally seen my own bug reports actioned which is
extremely satisfying, and the gekko based browsers are now far faster,
more stable and standards-compliant than the derelict IE6.
The truth is, fixing the problems with IE, won't make MS any money, so
they don't do it. The same goes for a lot of proprietory software. In
fact a lot of bugs are purposely left in, so the company can then
charge for the "new improved version".
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Well said. A very good example of this is Internet Explorer. Microsoft
>illegally garnered a 90% monopoly over the browser market, and since
>that time, virtually all improvement in their browser has ceased.
Ummmm... How about .Net, MSXML 3.0, standarized JAVA, P3P, automagic
image resizing, and toolbar tweaks. Not spectacular, but still
improvements.
>Bugs
>still exist from years ago (PNG rendering
PNG rendering has always worked. We've used PNG graphics with MRTG
since ever since GIF hit the legal system. The problem is that MS
does not have native support for PNG. It's supplied by various
add-ins and plug-ins such as Quicktime, and various graphics editors.
See:
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html
for the details.
>no way to prevent pop-up
>ads, etc, etc).
The next release promises popup control. However, there are various
plug-ins that do the job just fine. The Google Toolbar works well
enough.
MS is no longer going to release stand alone verisions of internet
explorer, but will imbed it as part of the next release of the
operating system (in direct violation of the JD consent decree).
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011859.html?tag=fd_top
Features get added faster than bugs get fixed. The result tends to be
a bloated monsterous bug infested crash prone insecure application.
Scott Burns
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:10:32 +0000, FyRE <Fy...@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well said. A very good example of this is Internet Explorer. Microsoft
>>illegally garnered a 90% monopoly over the browser market, and since
>>that time, virtually all improvement in their browser has ceased.
>>
>>
>
>Ummmm... How about .Net, MSXML 3.0, standarized JAVA,
>
<SNIP>
Standardised JAVA? Ummm.... :P
--
Scott Burns
Mirrabooka Systems
Tel +61 7 3857 7899
Fax +61 7 3857 1368
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>Standardised JAVA? Ummm.... :P
Sun Java instead of the MS mutation.
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/
Obviously, this was inspired by litigation and not by Microsofts
continuing development of the IE browser.
Bill Vermillion
Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>J. L. Schilling <jlsels...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>FyRE <Fy...@here-and-there.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.23....@here-and-there.invalid>...
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:05:55 +0000, Tony Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe information should be free, Tony. Do as you will. [...]
>
>>There's an interesting description of the lineage of
>>"Information wants to be Free", including the above
>>"... should be free" variation, at
>>http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html.
>>It's instructive to note that the original formulations always
>>included a second part: Information also wants to be expensive,
>>because it's so valuable. Therein lies the tension....
>But is it still valuable?
>If you read about gifting societies, they are only possible
>when food etc. is cheap and easy. Information used to be much
>harder to obtain than it is today, both in terms of direct
>access and in the myriad ways it is presented (the cost of
>finding it at all and the cost of understanding it once you
>find it).
>The same is true of programming: speed and cheap storage makes
>programming easier and therefore less expensive. Programs that
>once could only be written in assembly language now run
>quite reasonably in Perl.
Speed and cheap storage and RAM make it easier for poor programming
techniques [or programmers] to write code that performs at
acceptable levels in general use computers as we have today.
Embedded SW in small devices still requires good practices
but now is often done with small OSes instead of lowest level.
I'm amazed at how much can be packed into a $20 [retail] remote
control device that will control 100's of brands of TVs, VCRs,
DVD players, CD players, Receivers, et al. I was going over some
of the stuff that QNX was doing at their booth in a trade show a
few years and it's truly amazing what you can do with efficient
tools. A few years ago you could DL a 1.44MB floppy image
that booted up, inited your network card, and had a web browser.
I'd show that to people and they could not believe you could surf
the net with everything you need running and booting of a single
floppy. That's efficient code.
>There's also the matter that once you start sharing information,
>the cost of additional information or programs can become less
>because of what has already been done. I think we're seeing that
>with Linux rather plainly right now, but I suspect we're only
>at the beginning.
>My long term bet is that Open Source software WILL drive all
>but the very best commercial software out of the marketplace.
>It won't be that you cannot compete with Open Source, but
>it will take tremendous resources to do so.
And there will be plenty of room for people who know how to
properly implement and maintain that SW.
Then the day will come when someone has a new idea and the whole
world will again change. The revolutionary ideas - as opposed to
evolutionary - are such a break with what has gone before that when
they appear no one sees their true potential and the inventors only
think along limited lines and don't see the impact their devices
will have upon the future - inlcuding truly global changes.
One of the best examples of this was when John Shockley invented
the transfer-resistor - later shortened to transistor - back in
1947. At that time he said [and this is an approximate quote]
"It's interesting, but I can see no practical use for it."
Bill
Tony Lawrence
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:33:42 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>My long term bet is that Open Source software WILL drive all
>>but the very best commercial software out of the marketplace.
>>It won't be that you cannot compete with Open Source, but
>>it will take tremendous resources to do so.
>That's the dream. However, the problem (in my view) is that there's a
>lot of money being thrown at US politicians, encouraging them to clamp
Very true. See http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B680.html
As I said before, its political.
>down on free thought, exchange of ideas and the horrendous idea of
>distributing your own work for others to use, for free. In fact, this
>seems to be the (current) focus of SCO's case. The dastardly
>OpenSource movement, giving away it's code to other likeminded people,
>but not allowing Darl, BillG and co to steal it away for themselves. I
Yes. But what you miss here is that the issue is not black and white.
You believe that Open Source is good for society. I share that
belief, but there are people who do not.
You also ignore the fact that SCO insists that their property has
been misappropriated: stolen. If not true, of course we should
all share your anger. But we don't yet know the truth of that.
>think this has been a big driving force behind DRM. A company like MS
>could (and will) patent some basic system or protocol, DRM it, to
>prevent reverse engineering and interoperability with OS software.
Well, I think there were other reasons to create DRM. But things
oftem get used for other purposes.
>The fact the US patent system is almost certainly going to infect
>Europe and destroy a lot of companies is my biggest fear at the
>moment. If anyone has seen the ridiculously broad patents waiting in
>the wings, then it's easy to see these will stymie development for any
>company who can't foot huge legal bills along the development path
>unless they cripple their projects from the outset. The problem is
>that the patent lawyers are exterting such presure on our
>ignorant/greedy politicians to push this system through. More business
>for them, less innovation for us.
I agree. However, there is a silver lining there: while these
ridiculously broad patents stifle innovation now, when they expire
it's a very different story. Suppose, you could get a patent so
broad that it covered all programming algorithms. Awful: nobody
could write anything until the patent expired. Ah, but then? Nobody
could patent any programming algorithm at all. These "stupid"
patents may turn out to be enablers of freedom eventually.
>That's my view; OS has a rocky road ahead, but hopefully litigeous
>asshole companies such as SCO will crumble away over time and give
>people the freedom of choice, and the freedom to write software they
>wish for.
Again, that's a political issue. Not everybody thinks freedom is
good for society. In fact, an awful lot of government is there
simply to prevent freedom. There's always justification, real
or imagined, for the restrictions. You don't have the "freedom"
to kill me if you don't like my ideas. The justification for that is
quite understandable. You don't have the freedom to use illegal
drugs. That justification gets into more complex arguments, and
you can easily fall to one side or the other. You don't have the
freedom to be nude in public. The justification for that is almost
laughable, but very few people ever think about how silly it is.
Every restriction of freedom has a reason, which may be contorted
and illogical, but it is nonetheless "justified".
<p>It is quite easy to imagine
restrictions being put on Open Source (see
http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/licensedos.html for example) with
justification that a great number of people would find quite
reasonable. You, of course, would find that outrageous, as would
I. But a depressingly large number of people would probably
accept it.
Tony Lawrence
I put it in italicvs because I was getting ready to attribute it, but
then decided that just got into the mess of explaining that you
weren't really asserting this, so I didn't. Possibly a bad choice,
but..
>stuff. Plus you posted the URL here so that I'd have a decent chance of
>being aware of it. And it's not like you're profiting commercially from
>the use of my comment.
Well, that's not entirely true. Though the "profit" due to a specific
paragraph would be pretty small..
>Given that, I'm not going to worry about it. It was
>nice to me to see my writing style appreciated. And if "I'm* not worried
>about it, then the others don't have much cause to squawk.
I think I'll just reference this :-)
JamesDad
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>You also ignore the fact that SCO insists that their property has
>been misappropriated: stolen. If not true, of course we should
>all share your anger. But we don't yet know the truth of that.
Tony, I don't think anyone ignores the fact of SCO's IP claims. However,
as time goes on and their actions become more ludicrous, the likelihood of
the claims actually being valid becomes less and less.
The claims are becoming wilder and more far-reaching, but they have yet to
produce a single credible scrap of evidence that their claims are valid.
They are actively refusing (they don't SAY they are, but they are dragging
their feet to the extent that I can't call it anything else) to cooperate
in the discovery phase of the SCO vs. IBM suit, esp. where IBM's asking
"exactly WHAT are we supposed to have infringed?"
It's my opinion (strictly an educated guess) that SCO's threat to haul
someone into court within 90 days is directly related to IBM's Motion to
Compel Discovery. Oral arguments are scheduled for early December. If they
don't produce something solid and soon, IBM is likely to move for the suit
to be thrown out based on lack of merit. IMHO, under the circumstances
they've got a REAL good chance of having it thrown out. Then everyone will
see that the Emperor has no clothes. They will be unlikely to get a single
judge to take their cases against Linux-using corporations, and SCO may
get eaten alive in countersuits, suits by Linux developers (after all,
they're using copyrighted code released under the GPL while defying the
GPL), possible RICO suits, and some state attorneys general may go after
them for barratry and extortion. And wait until the SEC and the FTC get
involved! And it seems that SCO's goal in this particular threat is
strictly to get someone to cough up some money out of fear of litigation
while the FUD still holds. See "SCO's Linux Case: Is Winning Everything?"
at <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1394434,00.asp> for some more
details on that.
Can one PROVE that SCO has no case? No. But the odds that they don't have
a case increase by the day. The wheels of justice turn slow, but I believe
it's becoming more and more obvious which way they're turning.
Bill Vermillion
JamesDad <mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>It's my opinion (strictly an educated guess) that SCO's threat
>to haul someone into court within 90 days is directly related to
>IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery.
Getting anything into court except for a preliminay to set real
dates in 90 days is almost impossible anymore. Quite often it's a
year before anything worthwhile even begins it's process.
>Oral arguments are scheduled for early December. If they don't
>produce something solid and soon, IBM is likely to move for the
>suit to be thrown out based on lack of merit.
Being able to produce or not is no reason for a defendant not to
move for dismissal. You try everything in the book to make the
problem go away - whether your arguments have merit or not. All you
have to do is make a convincing case and hope the judge agrees with
you and not the opposition.
The court systems move far too slowly.
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>FyRE <Fy...@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:33:42 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>
>You also ignore the fact that SCO insists that their property has
>been misappropriated: stolen. If not true, of course we should
>all share your anger. But we don't yet know the truth of that.
Making unsustantiated claims is unacceptable. At this point, SCO's
claims about SCO's code in Linux are totally unsubstantiated. Anger at
SCO is justified NOW.
>
>>The fact the US patent system is almost certainly going to infect
>>Europe and destroy a lot of companies is my biggest fear at the
>>moment. If anyone has seen the ridiculously broad patents waiting in
>>the wings, then it's easy to see these will stymie development for any
>>company who can't foot huge legal bills along the development path
>>unless they cripple their projects from the outset. The problem is
>>that the patent lawyers are exterting such presure on our
>>ignorant/greedy politicians to push this system through. More business
>>for them, less innovation for us.
I agree with you here. I think the real concern has to be the
competitive disadvantage that the devloped countries are creating for
themselves compared to countries like China and India. It's not that I
oppose the right of countries to develop themselves, just that things
like software patents will make it difficult and in some cases
impossible for US and European companies to compete in those markets.
>
>
>I agree. However, there is a silver lining there: while these
>ridiculously broad patents stifle innovation now, when they expire
>it's a very different story. Suppose, you could get a patent so
>broad that it covered all programming algorithms. Awful: nobody
>could write anything until the patent expired. Ah, but then? Nobody
>could patent any programming algorithm at all. These "stupid"
>patents may turn out to be enablers of freedom eventually.
Unfortuantely, you analysis is not correct. The existence of one patent
does not prevent later, somewhat derivative patents.
>
Joe Dunning
<mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>It's my opinion (strictly an educated guess) that SCO's threat to haul
>someone into court within 90 days is directly related to IBM's Motion to
>Compel Discovery.
I don't think so. I don't think a court will be swayed by outside and
unrelated actions. I think it is more likely to be action to prop up
SCO's drooping stock price. It seems to have worked today.
> Oral arguments are scheduled for early December. If they
>don't produce something solid and soon, IBM is likely to move for the suit
>to be thrown out based on lack of merit. IMHO, under the circumstances
>they've got a REAL good chance of having it thrown out.
I doubt this will happen. I think SCO's whole strategy is to delay as
much as possible and I don't think their lawyers are so stupid as to
let the case be totally thrown out. Also, it's only the Magistrate Judge
who is holding the hearing on December 5, so no such decisions are
likely to be made.
Joe Dunning
wrote:
>The biggest advantage of open source is the huge pool of resources
>available to solve problems. Any commercial vendor has to allocate
>resources according to some set of priorities, and it's unlikely that their
>priorities are the same as mine. With open source I can dig in to solve my
>particular problem now, and don't have to wait for the vendor to get a
>round tuit.
I think that the collaborative aspects of open source are key. This is
why the GPL has enabled GNU/Linux.
Microsoft has a monopoly and an huge cash pile to fend off competition.
Very few single companies can compete against Microsoft when Microsoft
decides it wants to own a particular market (*). It is the enemy of
many, many software and hardware companies.
However, open source and the GPL allows companies to collaborate and
build competitive offerings with no formal agreements between those
companies. The GPL prevents one company trying to leech off the efforts
of the other contributors when selling software.
The collaobrative efforts aginst a single competitor are what has driven
many companies to invest in open source and to pay developers to work on
open source. The question might be: what happens when there is no common
enemy?
(*) Note: I'm talking about pure software markets. Microsoft hasn't been
too successful in other areas.
FyRE
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:10:32 +0000, FyRE <Fy...@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
>wrote:
>
>>Well said. A very good example of this is Internet Explorer. Microsoft
>>illegally garnered a 90% monopoly over the browser market, and since
>>that time, virtually all improvement in their browser has ceased.
>
>Ummmm... How about .Net, MSXML 3.0, standarized JAVA, P3P, automagic
>image resizing, and toolbar tweaks. Not spectacular, but still
>improvements.
I'd hardly call image resizing an improvement; in fact I'd wager it's
the first thing people turn off. .Net has nothing to do with web
browsing; rather it's MS's latest attempt to lock-in customers and
developers. Standardised Java was forced upon them; it's hardly an MS
improvement. "Toolbar tweaks"??! Please...
As a DHTML developer, I could name a dozen serious problems that have
existed and STILL exist in the DOM, which are unlikely to ever be
addressed.
>>Bugs
>>still exist from years ago (PNG rendering
>
>PNG rendering has always worked. We've used PNG graphics with MRTG
>since ever since GIF hit the legal system. The problem is that MS
>does not have native support for PNG. It's supplied by various
>add-ins and plug-ins such as Quicktime, and various graphics editors.
>See:
> http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html
>for the details.
Ever seen a PNG with alpha transparency rendered in Mozilla/Opera etc,
alongside the horrific mess IE makes of the same? PNG rendering does
not "work". It's far from complete, and requires ugly CSS hacks to
force the browser into some semblence of compliance. PNG is an open
standard; MS have a lot of developers; it's not rocket science to
write an import filter for an image. The reason they're not fixing
these things is simple: It's not going to generate revenue. Same as
any proprietary software vendor with a monopoly.
>>no way to prevent pop-up
>>ads, etc, etc).
>
>The next release promises popup control.
Yeah, because it's so fiendishly difficult to add this feature it'll
take until next year.
>However, there are various
>plug-ins that do the job just fine. The Google Toolbar works well
>enough.
Here you merely prove my point. MS didn't fix it - despite requests by
users. They're not interested. It took a third party to offer a fix.
>MS is no longer going to release stand alone verisions of internet
>explorer, but will imbed it as part of the next release of the
>operating system (in direct violation of the JD consent decree).
> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011859.html?tag=fd_top
This just shows the extent to which a corporation can buy its way out
of any problem with the US "government".
>Features get added faster than bugs get fixed. The result tends to be
>a bloated monsterous bug infested crash prone insecure application.
Hmm, you think MS will use that line in the advertising campaign for
IE7?
Tony Lawrence
Of course it does, if it's broad enough.
However, I'd much rather see sanity in the patent and copyright laws. The
situation today is utterly ridiculous.
Tony Lawrence
>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:23:41 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>You also ignore the fact that SCO insists that their property has
>>been misappropriated: stolen. If not true, of course we should
>>all share your anger. But we don't yet know the truth of that.
>Tony, I don't think anyone ignores the fact of SCO's IP claims. However,
>as time goes on and their actions become more ludicrous, the likelihood of
>the claims actually being valid becomes less and less.
No, I wouldn't say that. There's no new evidence, pro or con, so
the situation is unchanged.
I absolutely DO agree that the use of GPL software while ignoring the
GPL license is unconsciable.
>The claims are becoming wilder and more far-reaching, but they have yet to
>produce a single credible scrap of evidence that their claims are valid.
>They are actively refusing (they don't SAY they are, but they are dragging
>their feet to the extent that I can't call it anything else) to cooperate
>in the discovery phase of the SCO vs. IBM suit, esp. where IBM's asking
>"exactly WHAT are we supposed to have infringed?"
That's normal lawyerish behaviour.
>It's my opinion (strictly an educated guess) that SCO's threat to haul
>someone into court within 90 days is directly related to IBM's Motion to
>Compel Discovery. Oral arguments are scheduled for early December. If they
>don't produce something solid and soon, IBM is likely to move for the suit
>to be thrown out based on lack of merit. IMHO, under the circumstances
I would hope that would be succesful. I'd like to see this crap done with.
>they've got a REAL good chance of having it thrown out. Then everyone will
>see that the Emperor has no clothes. They will be unlikely to get a single
>judge to take their cases against Linux-using corporations, and SCO may
>get eaten alive in countersuits, suits by Linux developers (after all,
>they're using copyrighted code released under the GPL while defying the
>GPL), possible RICO suits, and some state attorneys general may go after
>them for barratry and extortion. And wait until the SEC and the FTC get
>involved! And it seems that SCO's goal in this particular threat is
>strictly to get someone to cough up some money out of fear of litigation
>while the FUD still holds. See "SCO's Linux Case: Is Winning Everything?"
>at <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1394434,00.asp> for some more
>details on that.
>Can one PROVE that SCO has no case? No. But the odds that they don't have
>a case increase by the day. The wheels of justice turn slow, but I believe
>it's becoming more and more obvious which way they're turning.
Perhaps.. Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to see them lose this.
Joe Dunning
<a...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>Unfortuantely, you analysis is not correct. The existence of one patent
>>does not prevent later, somewhat derivative patents.
>
>Of course it does, if it's broad enough.
No it does not. The subsequent patents can focus on improvements of the
original patented ideas.
>
>However, I'd much rather see sanity in the patent and copyright laws. The
>situation today is utterly ridiculous.
I agree.