Professional Web Applications Themes

Brian, I'm Just Curious... - SCO

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. 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 ...

  1. #1

    Default Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    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.

    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 ing 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 ing 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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  2. #2

    Default RE: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    JamesDad wrote: 

    <snip>
     

    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

    Bill Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:16:23 GMT, Bill Andersen <com> wrote: 

    I presume you meant "your children continue to outlive you" and you pray
    "they will all outlive you"? :-)

    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  4. #4

    Default RE: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    Bill Andersen <com> wrote: 
    > However selfish 
    >[/ref]
    JamesDad wrote: 

    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!
    Bill Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:24:28 GMT, JamesDad
    <com> wrote:
     

    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?
    Joe Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:24:21 GMT, invalid (Joe Dunning)
    wrote:
     
    >
    >I think you are missing the bigger picture. SCO has made this an issue
    >of how trustworthy is open source software.[/ref]

    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.

    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    JamesDad wrote:

    <clipped for brevity>
     
     

    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 ed!

    I am ed at the engineers that work at SCO who know that this is a fraud
    and yet hold their silence. I am ed at the thick headed thinking that
    refuses to acknowledge facts in evidence that point to the truth of SCO's
    duplicity. I am ed 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 ed 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

    Brian Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    JamesDad <com> wrote:
     

    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..

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    Tony Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
    <TheWorld.com> wrote:
     
    >
    >I think you need to understand more of the psychology of Linux.[/ref]

    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. :-)
     

    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 doented 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" doenting 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.


    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
    <TheWorld.com> wrote:
     
    >
    >
    >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.[/ref]

    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.

     

    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.

    Joe Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    In article <com>,
    JamesDad <com> wrote:

    ....

     

    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
    Bill Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:45:30 GMT, Brian <com> wrote:

    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.
     
    >
    >I have installed Linux network services in commercial environments since
    >1995 and for the last two years have begun installing and supporting Linux
    >desktops.[/ref]

    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.
     

    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.
     

    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.
     

    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.
     

    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.
     

    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 can't blame you!
     

    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.
     

    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'.
     

    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.
     

    Hmph! I'd go her than that. Their bizarre actions have inspired me to
    coin a new phrase; "rabid pit bull in a china shop". Sound about right?
     

    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.
     

    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.
     

    I've noticed that as I scan the threads, and I respect that if no one else
    does.
     

    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.


    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:25:01 GMT, comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
    wrote:
     
    >
    >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.[/ref]

    <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".


    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:12:41 GMT, invalid (Joe Dunning)
    wrote: 
    >
    >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.[/ref]

    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...

    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:17 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
    <TheWorld.com> wrote:
     
    >
    >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[/ref]

    For dispassionate, read "mercenary". Tony is a very confused man...
    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  16. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    Removed by Administrator
    JamesDad Guest
    Moderated Post

  17. #17

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:12:39 GMT, JamesDad
    <com> wrote:
     

    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".
     

    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.
     
    >
    >Countering arguments is quite appropriate. Making such counter-arguments
    >personal, abusive, profane and/or vindictive is not. "F--- you, Dave"[/ref]

    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.

    Joe Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:08:07 GMT, invalid (Joe Dunning)
    wrote: 
    >
    >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.[/ref]

    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.



    ================================================== =====================
    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>.
    JamesDad Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    In article <com>,
    JamesDad <com> wrote: [/ref]
     
    >>
    >>And for reading what is in the e-press this one popped up today.[/ref][/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     

    Not too far of - 2038 - and unless I missed converting it will be
    shortly after January 18,2038 and at 22:14:07 EST
     

    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 doent
    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 doents 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
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Brian, I'm Just Curious...

    In article <com>,
    JamesDad <com> wrote:

     

    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.


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Curious
    By texas_stingray in forum Macromedia Flex General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 5th, 06:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139