|
Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" |
|
Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT
|
Well, friends, we've won the Alexis de Tocqueville FUD war. It's official. In the face of a united community's repudiation of Ken Brown's "Samizdat" attack on Linus and Linux, Microsoft told the Wall St. Journal's reporter, Lee Gomes, the report wasn't helpful, leading Gomes to end his report, "Recent attacks on Linux come from dubious source", like this:
"With growing numbers of businesses turning to Linux, its pros and cons are fair game for debate. But cynically manufacturing confusion isn't debating. Even Microsoft didn't like the way this report turned out, though it indirectly helped subsidize it. A company spokesman called the study, 'an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best technology for our customers.'" That is the cherry on top that dooms the report to the junk bin. I doubt that it enhances a "think tank's" reputation to be called an "unhelpful" "dubious source".
Do you think they'll put that quotation up on their web site? I wish to commend Microsoft for repudiating this "study", which they were at least indirectly responsible for. No. Really. There is no need to be cynical today, although I'm sure we can all admit to plenty of subsidiary reactions, including a definite reaction to claiming "the best technology". But this is a day to just rejoice and let a few things slide for now. I have a further suggestion for Microsoft, since they followed my advice about repudiating Samizdat: learn to play nice with others, distance yourself from SCO, drop what we believe are your patent-pool attack plans on GNU/Linux, actually work on providing the best technology instead, and you may find your company has a future after all. It's the Information Age now, you know. The old ham-fisted, muscle techniques will have to go, because they don't work in broad daylight, and that is exactly where you are. I'm only kidding about them following my advice -- I have no knowledge that they followed or even knew about my previous suggestion. We've had a huge upsurge in trolls since I began highlighting the AdTI story, so maybe they did, but that isn't proof positive. If I were AdTI, I'd put out a press release, but I'm not, so I'll acknowledge it's only suggestive. They could be AdTI operatives, or SCO's, after all. Still, it was good advice. And so is this. And by the way, Bill Claybrook agrees with me. Remember when Mr. Claybrook was an Aberdeen analyst? No more. Guess what he's doing now? He's president of New River Linux & Grid Computing. Yup. The handwriting is on the wall.
You can read Gomes' story on the Wall Street Journal [update: no more; but you can find most of it here], if you have a sub, on page B1 (or search for Gomes off the home page), or via Google, which directs you to the AP, which has picked up the story. So, as weird as it feels, we can now add Microsoft to our list of those offering rebuttals to Samizdat. Don't forget, SCO has another teleconference today, Tuesday, at 11 AM Eastern, to tell a drooling world all about SCO's new UNIX products businesses just can't wait to buy from the company that has shown a singular propensity to sue its own erstwhile customers and partners when funds get low. I'm sure there is a line forming all around the block. No doubt they'll write a long novel for Judge Kimball about how it is all Novell's fault. The truth is people don't much like doing business with serial litigators.
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
Corrections Here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
'an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best
technology for our customers.'
So Microsoft is going to be providing
either Linux or *BSD to their customers now? --- The only reason we
retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US* died to preserve
those rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:54 AM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: MrTimPA on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:36 AM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:45 AM EDT
- Microsoft have the solution in their own hands - Authored by: paul_cooke on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT
- Microsoft have the solution in their own hands - Authored by: kevinsnotalawyer on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:51 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: reuben on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: paul_cooke on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Microsoft have the solution in their own hands - Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:00 AM EDT
- Apple? - Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT
- On the contrary - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Microsoft have the solution in their own hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:59 AM EDT
- Microsoft have the solution in their own hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:33 AM EDT
- Because - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- Because - Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Because - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT
- If microsoft could keep pace with technology ... - Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT
- The only problem is piracy - Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- Oh, yeah - I would like to see how well THAT worked - Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- Just imagine.... Microsoft Linux - Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- They got their whole world in their hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- They got their whole world in their hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Duplication - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:44 AM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- Kidding aside - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- The real world catches up with the invented. - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
...I've found myself gratified by something from Microsoft.
I'll keep my cynicism to myself for a while, and be happy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I hope this is helpful about Microsoft and Caldera DR-DOS and OEM IDs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:39 AM EDT
- I hope this is helpful about Microsoft and Caldera DR-DOS and OEM IDs - Authored by: ihawk on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- I hope this is helpful about Microsoft and Caldera DR-DOS and OEM IDs - Authored by: british on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Seems like this thread belongs elsewhere ?? - Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:24 AM EDT
- Data recovery - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:47 AM EDT
- Data recovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- IBM probably already knows. - Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT
- I hope this is helpful about Microsoft and Caldera DR-DOS and OEM IDs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- I hope this is helpful about Microsoft and Caldera DR-DOS and OEM IDs - Authored by: Kiaser Zohsay on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- Win95 overwrote MBR, complicated dual boot Re: MS / DR-DOS ... - Authored by: randall on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- OK, I'll bite - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- OK, I'll bite - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
I found the report extreamly helpful. Pointing out there a lots of people out
there willing to pounce on Linux who have not idea wha they are talking about.
Also pointing out just because there educated, does not mean they have a lick of
sense. FUD POOF Linux ..... You gota love it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheMohel on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
Other than confusing "infer" and "imply", a pet peeve of mine for which I can
forgive Mr. Gomes quite readily, this is one of the better articles I've ever
read. Not just on this subject, but on any.
I'm rather a fan of the WSJ in
general, because they seem to like objective reality (although they, like all
media, have a bias). But when the reporter's take includes a good sample of the
salient evidence, makes appropriate (but not excessive) judgments about the
quality of the debate, and even includes new supporting quotes from Microsoft
(that I'm thrilled to see), it's a good day for journalism. The old kind of
journalism, where truth matters.
And none of it would have happened without
Groklaw, because there'd have been no central clearinghouse pointing the way to
all of the bits and pieces of the community's rebuttal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- infer vs. imply - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT
|
Authored by: erehwon on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
I guess parts of my letter are a little out of date now!
***
I sent this to PJ this afternoon. (my time) she kindly suggested that I post it
as a comment.
***
On Jun 14, 2004, at 5:25 PM, David wrote:
I sent this message to my Congressman, Hon. Jim Kolbe, of the Arizona
delegation, and thought you might wish to read it and perhaps comment or
criticize. (Heaven forfend that you might criticize too harshly -- I would be
burnt, shriveled,and dimished to a mere wraith...)
You should probably chop off my phone number at the bottom.
David
*** Quoted message follows ***
Sir:
I am a volunteer with a small non-profit group (CCLAC) here in Bisbee. We
refurbish older computers, and install free and open source software on them.
Because we cannot afford proprietary software, we must use other resources. For
the operating system, instead of Windows, I install one of several 'flavors' of
Linux, I also provide an office productivity suite, (Open Office.org) and a web
browser. (Mozilla)
All of these programs are free, and the copyrights are licensed under the
GPL (The General Public License) The authors of (and proxy holders for the GPL
and a lot of GPL'd software) are the Free Software Foundation.
<www.fsf.org>
There are a number of stories developing in the news and in the software
world that cause me grave concern. Many of my concerns have to do with the
modifications of and the extensions to the Copyright Act, and frivolous
patents.
There is a new book out (freely downloadable and distributable) named _Free
Culture_, by Dr. Lawrence Lessig, that enumerates many of the problems, (some
the result of 'The law of unintended consequences') That have emerged as a
result of recent revisions to the Copyright Act. He also offers some
suggestions that might clear the current impasses that block a consistent
approach to Intellectual Property rights and the disputes that surround them.
This is Dr Lessig's home page:
<http://www.lessig.org/>
Here is the link to the PDF file:
<http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf>
If you wish, there is a plain-text version at:
<http://www.firasd.org/scrapbook/books/lessig/freeculture.txt>
I am not as eloquent as the leaders of the Free and Open Source Software
Community, (often abbreviated F/OSS) so I offer several links to websites that
cover the 'Cream of the crop' of the main F/OSS advocacy organizations.
This is not, by any means meant to be an exhaustive list, but simply to
allow your staffers the opportunity to acquaint themselves with this very real
problem.
<www.fsf.org> The Free Software Foundation, the authors of the GPL,
the General Public License, under which most free or open source software is
licensed.
<http://www.oss-institute.org/> The Open Source Software Institute
<http://www.osdl.org/> The Open Software Development Labs, who are the
current employers of Linus Torvalds, the original author of Linux, and currently
the project manager of the Linux Kernel Project.
<www.pubpat.org> The Public Patent Foundation who are seeking
de-certification by re-examination of a frivolous patent issued to Microsoft
Corporation. Their chartered purpose is to force re-examination of frivolous
patents in general, and in particular those that might be intended to strangle
the open source community.
<www.groklaw.net> A website run by paralegal Pamela Jones, dedicated
to conveying up-to-date information about the various SCO (Nasdaq [SCOX])
lawsuits involving IBM, Novell, RedHat, Autozone, and Daimler-Chrysler. Her
website is viewed regularly by members of the F/OSS community, by attorneys for
all the parties involved in the various disputes, by many other attorneys who
are simply following the cases, and (probably) the law clerks for the several
judges in the various jurisdictions.
Her site is valuable for two reason: If you simply wish to follow the
minutiae of the various lawsuits, there is a timeline stretching from SCO's
first press releases 18 months ago, to rulings made just a few days ago in the
Novell and IBM actions.
The second, and probably more important function her website serves, is to
make available in one place the combined (open source again!) talents, and
knowledge of thousands of people involved in the open source community, by
implementing Linus Torvald's observation, "...that with many eyes, all bugs
are shallow." (That is generally accepted to mean that with a lot of
observers, the truth is easy to determine.)
These people are the people who actually wrote a lot of the code that now
runs America and the world. There are historians and programmers, professors,
executives, and all manner of folks who simply want to see their ideals
fulfilled.
<www.adti.net> I include this website for the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution as a counterpoint. They have self-published a book, _Samizdat_,
written by one, Ken Brown, that purports to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of
Linus Torvalds, Linux and it contributors. It is significant that most, if not
all of his interviewees have denied that they said what Brown claims that they
said, and the open source community has roundly criticized the book as a 'paid
hatchet job' The main reason for thinking so is the fact that Microsoft is a
regular and beneficent contributor to their Institution. It might or not be
relevant that the names of all their contributors have been elided from the
public versions of their Form 990's
I know this is a lot of work, and a lot of stuff to read, but the situation
is so serious, that it needs to be addressed, and addressed decisively. I would
recommend that you speak with Rep. Rick Boucher, who has recently introduced
some legislation that will, perhaps, deal with many of the concerns expressed
here.
I respect your integrity and intelligence (as well, of course, as your staff
people) and hope that you look into these, and related concerns.
You may, of course, contact me by phone or email, should you feel the need
for more information.
Sincerely,
David M Wilson
<erehwon@cableone.net>
*** End quoted message ***
---
I'm old. I'm grumpy. Get over it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:05 AM EDT |
First SCO gets the bad rulings, then they get the bad earnings report and now
this. I do hope that AdTI stays in business since they are so entertaining.
Maybe next AdTI can write books on why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs
have wings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
I have to concur with PJ that Microsoft deserves credit for coming out and
saying the whole thing was a waste of time, and not very useful to either side.
(I don't like to think of it as "sides", but that is how it seems somedays.)
Even if it was in their best interest to do so, it was the last thing I expected
MS to do, so I guess that's why I am impressed. That, as PJ pointed out,
is how we expect companies to conduct themselves today, and it gains our
respect.
I was particularly interested to see that the article comes right
out and says MS partly funded the study. My tinfoil hat fell off when I read
that. (It has been kinda loose lately....getting worn out, I guess.)
Anyway,
one small battle in a greater war.
What will ADti have on their website
now.....now that they aren't "Ground Zero" for the BIG Debate
anymore??
--- Change is merely the opportunity for improvement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
I just wanna say this is the best web site on the net !
I check it everyday (I'm a Linux user) to keep up to date. And.. PJ, if your
not married, I'm available ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mr.mighty on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
Between AdTI's ridiculous attacks on linux, SCO's ridiculous attacks on linux,
and the SCO legal team's awful performance in the courts, I'm left to wonder if
they're all the same group. When AdTI is around, SCO disappears. When SCO shows
up in court, the AdTI is never there. Just like a brain-dead version of Clark
Kent and Superman.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
I'm sober- really I am... did I just read this?
Yes I did!
Did I?
Oh my.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
This all begs the question... who, then, co-erced AdTI into writing such a
report? Judging by this news, Microsoft didn't directly initiate or fund
it.
This leaves one remaining suspect: The SCO
Group!
--- Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
Even when Microsoft is telling the truth, they're still lying.
They're still lying because they have no actual intention to tell the truth.
Microsoft speaks strategically -- they only say what they think will gain them
the greatest advantage. Sometimes, that _happens_ to correspond with the truth,
like a broken clock that tells the right time twice a day. :-)
In this case, Microsoft is trying to distance themselves from the AdTI because
Ken Brown's report is producing the opposite to its intended effect.
The report has been repudiated by multiple sources, and the report has been
associated with Microsoft propaganda.
Thus, when people (including government officials) read the report, instead of
seeing it as evidence of what's wrong with Linux, they're seeing it as evidence
of what's wrong with Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
Seen on
lwn.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
Warning Put down Drinks
Here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
> Well, friends, we've won the Alexis de Tocqueville FUD war.
It is only a battle. We've a long way before we win the war.
Like the patents battle. And corporate / client / politicians' attitudes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:20 AM EDT
- Microsoft's attitude - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
I'm looking forward to reading the transcript of that recent Twilight Zone
episode dressed up as SCO's latest financial conference call.
Maureen
O'Gara.... Egads, where to begin. As the principal monkey wrangler ('Forget
SCO's abysmal financials and look over there, everyone!'), Dr Seuss on 'shrooms
couldn't have done it better. She did a great job refocusing immediately on the
German stock exchange thing. But, my gosh, what was with the long pauses,
stumbling thought process, and fifth-grader mentality? Despite her contempt for the FOSS
community, I don't wish to defame her character, but what the heck was that
performance suppose to achieve? It made her look bad and it did the conference
no good to have so much 'dead air'... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
"Research and development:"
"...The increase in research and development
expense [13%]....was primarily attributable to increased personnel and related
costs attributable to development work and enhancements of our two UNIX
operating system products..."
Horay! I read this and I said to
myself...maybe SCO is learning. While they have been laying off people in
all the other departments, they have been hiring people in R&D! Good for
them, they have learned they can't just be a litigation firm any more!
And
tomorrow they are going to announce some all their new software
offerings....
....and then I read the next paragraph:
"For the last
two quarters of fiscal year 2004, we anticipate the dollar amount of research
and development expenses will decrease compared to the secondquarter of fiscal
year 2004 due to recently implemented cost reductions."
AKA: A 13%
layoff in R&D
Thanks for your help, guys. Great software you wrote! This
will come in handy! Now, security will show you to the door...."
Oh,
well.
--- Change is merely the opportunity for improvement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
Sorry, there's just nothing not to be cynical about.
M$FT blatantly arranges and funds Caldera/The SCO Group to sue Linux users and
spew anti-Linux FUD (up to and *including* the idea that Linux is stolen from
Unix) and now they say the AdTI report is "unhelpful" while they plug
their products? They buy bogus software licenses from the Caldera/The SCO Group
racketeers to fund and exert influence on their crusade against Linux, and
people shouldn't be cynical?
I know that no one has forgotten, but let me remind you anyway: in the year+
that Groklaw has been online, almost every major lie campaign directed against
Linux has turned out to have M$FT's fingers in it. Halloween X, ABI Licenses,
or Enderle, anyone? AdTI is just another in a long chain of these lies.
Truth is always a good thing, but come on, there's a context here! Call a spade
a spade!
IMHO this is nothing more than damage control for their public image. Does
anyone think that this "truth" that M$FT now pronounces would have
been spoken by them if Linux users, IT professionals, and too many others to
name hadn't spoken with outrage and contempt at the M$FT-funded
"study"? Do you really REALLY think they wouldn't have just sat by
and watch "samizdat" destroy Linus and Linux developers' reputations,
even if they knew it was outright lies and that it was their money paying for
it? Three words: I don't thinkso.
It's going to take a heckuva lot more "truthfulness" before many
people, including myself, cease to be cynical regarding M$FT.
FWIW this "research" may have been just vaporware all along. As
others here have postulated, maybe it was never meant to be published, just to
be described as "According to a study by AdTI due out later this year,
Linus Torvalds and Linux developers are all liars..." by the press. Just
enough to get the honest people angry and to get the attention of the PHBs with
baseless facts that then never actually make their libelous existence real. If
that's the case, then this statement by M$FT may just be the easy way out. They
heroically denounce the "research" while the book is quietly
cancelled as was originally intended. Or is the tinfoil just on too tight?
And BTW Bill, it's not a jihad it's a revolution.
---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
Hello all
thought I would throw this in, as I have not seen any mention anywhere else. The
British IT press is running stories on how the Oracle v. PeopleSoft case
(currently going through U.S. anti-competition law ?) has thrown up the fact
that Microsoft and SAP recently discussed a merger. Apparently both sides came
to the conclusion it would be too complex and painful.
However what should be taken into account is the vast size of MS "war
chest" and that fact that it could contemplate this. I have seen figures
suggesting the following market valuations:
MS $287 Billion
IBM $151 Billion
HP $67 Billion
Oracle $60 Billion
SAP $52 Billion
EMC $28 Billion
Accenture $24 Billion
Sun $14 Billion
Now although MS have never paid more than the $1.4 Billion it layed out for
Navision, it could buy out IBM if it wanted to !
It doesn't do this because as it noted with the SAP deal, its all horribly
complicated, however what happens if Sun open sources Solaris, and then MS steps
in and buys Sun for a paltry $15 billion (yes, pay over the odds to make sure
you get the share holders on side), sells the Sparc processor to Fujitsu-Siemens
and then starts using Sun's "IP" against us ?
A purely fictious scenario, but I am sure you can see where I am coming from !
Jed (in the UK)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:17 AM EDT |
Open source tip of the day. Open-sourcers hate to pay for copyrighted material
-- even when it's the much-admired prose of Lee Gomes at The Wall Street
Journal. How to read Gomes for free, given the strict copyright policies at
Dow-Jones? Answer: click here, to be whisked to Linux Today, where there's a
large archive of links to many of Gomes's magazine and Journal articles, posted
free at sites such as lucifer.com, news.excite.com, and even zdnet.com. "I
always read Gomes off the Linux Today links," chirps a correspondent to
AdTI's message boards. Warning: Sometimes the links go down, as the DJ
barristers comb the world for pirated Journal content. "I have one word for
you in that case," another Gomes fan writes: "google cache." Well
two words. "But it beats having to shell out $300 for the
d---Journal."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
This is an admission by Microsoft that it is a "distraction". Why
should it be distracted if it has nothing to do with it? This implies that they
were hoping, at one point, that something "helpful" would come out
from this study. That is, they paused for a while from "providing the best
technology for our customer" and see if Ken Brown help them with an easier
method. Now they realize they have been distracted, and let's return back to
providing technology.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
As reported in todays Aftenposten ("The Evening Mail" in Norwegian -
Norway's largest daily newspaper), the city of Bergen (Norway's second largest
city, situated beautifully amongst mountains and fiords ;-) has decided to go
Linux:
"...[Bergen] county's central databases and educational network, which
today are running on Windows or Unix, will switch to Linux within the end of
this year.
This means that 15,000 administrative employees, more than 35,000 school
children and teachers at more than 100 schools in Norway's second largest city
will be controlled by Linux-based systems..."
They cite cost reductions, security and stability, and freedom from being tied
up with one vendor as benefits of switching to an open source platform. They're
also contemplating using Linux for office applications and in elementary school
teaching.
Original article here (Norwegian):
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/nett/article809575.ece
:-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pyrite on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
I think this is a very good move on Microsoft's part. I tend to see large
companies like that as sort of being in a situation where "one hand doesn't
know what the other hand is doing", so while this is a good move on their
part, whether or not the company as a whole has learned anything from this is a
good question.
I think that is just something that tends to happen whenever you have a very
large organization; I think it's inevitable. That's probably why people go to
get those MBA's - so that they can try to get some kind of control over these
types of huge organizations and make some sense out of them.
The impression that I am under that in any organization the size of Microsoft,
you are going to have individuals who have the power and the authority to try to
pull off this kind of stuff. Perhaps there will be an internal investigation and
a reassesment of why these types of things go on.
In any case, I still support an individual's choice of operating systems or
computer software, and I don't really have any problem with anyone that decides
that Microsoft is the best software for their particular purpose.
It's definitely in Microsoft's best interests to be helpful and supportive of
individuals' rights to choose to use Linux or BSD, because if this turns into a
partisan issue, it's not going to be good for either Linux or Microsoft, and the
freedom of people to choose what is best for them will be dictated by their
political affiliations instead of their actual needs and preferences. At least
in the US, that is.
Let the customers choose. Provide the customer with accurate information, so the
customer can make an informed decision. What could be better than that? There
are lots of people who like Windows, and will continue to use Windows. I think
that in the end, this will work out just fine.
P.S. What about a Microsoft "flavor" of Linux?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:25 AM EDT |
"Instead, Mr. Toptygin, appalled by the way Mr. Brown was ignoring the
evidence, posted his work online. (He also refused his paycheck.)" Lee
Gomes
Tpotygin is a class act. He deserves the thanks of the Open Source community for
doing the right thing, even though it cost him and even though he could have
used the money. I hope somebody reputable hires him.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:29 AM EDT |
It just occurred to me that it might be good PR for companies like IBM, Red hat
Novell and the like could have some sort of "tractor plant tour"
showing the local congressmen how software is developed, what source code is,
how version control works how many different platforms can be compiled for from
one version of the source. Of course show them exactly what open source is,
there should be no need for PR spin, just the facts and cover any possible M$
FUD areas. Also it will give the congressmen some idea of the fact that there is
both money and votes behind it. More importantly when M$ comes up to them waving
bundles of cash they might decide it is not necessarily in their interest to
accept.
I am not necessarily anti M$ but the market has taught Novell and IBM some hard
lessons and they have emerged better companies for it M$ needs the same lesson.
Anybody who remembers how IBM and Novell used to be will know how much their
attitude to their customers has improved of late.
My A$0.02
Mark
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
Implicit in the phrase "unhelpful distraction" is the admission that
M$ regards some distractions as helpful. Otherwise, they would have just called
it a "distraction".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
"In the face of a united community's repudiation of Ken Brown's
"Samizdat" attack on Linus and Linux" PJ
The repudiation was effective because of its methodology: groklaw and PJ took
the lead, gathered the facts and put them out to the world. In other words, our
repudiation was terminally effective because we stayed away from polemics.
At the end of the day, our demonstrated effectiveness in snuffing out FUD will
be a key factor in the decision of any corporate entity to avoid starting FUD
wars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: archonix on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 07:06 AM EDT |
Helsinki: A previously unknown species of bug has been discovered lurking in the
hitherto virgin territory oft referred to as Kerneland. This new species,
nicknamed "Minimus Nonsensica" until properly classified, has only
been spotted once and was unfortunately squashed flat when its discover, one
Linus Torvalds, sat down on it whilst writing an epic poem of the hsitory of the
land.
The bug is considered dangerous only if you can penetrate the dense jungle and
security fences surround Kerneland and then introduce another small creature
known as a 'daemon' in to the bug's nest.
Kerneland is a popular port of call for bug-hunters, despite the fact that bugs
are so rarely found, and is a rapidly growing centre for commerce and industry,
despite some recent false controversy over the historical accuracy of its
foundation raised by AdTI researcher Kenny McCormick, who has also claimed that
Mr Torvalds was unable to write more than one word a day.
---
The only money being made here is by Sue, Grabbit and Rune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
Does anyone else think that the adti website (http://www.adti.net) is the
slimest website they've read in recent history - not to mention one of the
poorest and inelegant?
Considering that they recieve funding in the millions, you would think it would
be possible to create an internet presence that inspires a sense of
professionality and competency.
Not to mention the self agrandizement going on:
- 'a tour de force'
- 'the right prescription', 'cogent'
Right at the bottom is this little gem:
Images used on this site are copyrighted to AdTI <b>or have been gathered
from non-copyrighted sources or with the permission of the copyright holder, to
the best of our knowledge</b>
Finally, when zdnet, or other news sites place their own articles based on
WSJ's, they do so with permission, having business relationships with WSJ to do
so. Thus WSJ remains compensated for their work. This is just another example of
K.B trying to spin everything to make the F/OSS community appear dishonest,
immoral, and unethical.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
This is an "unhelpful distraction". Now if you will excuse us, we have
to go concentrate on SCO...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
On the page with AdTI's mission
statment, there are a couple of links to their accomplishments:
No accomplishments yet I suppoose.
Also,
there are no links to "View the Crew" or "Staff & Associates" on the mission
statment page. I guess they don't want their faces to be known.
//
Magnus [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
I am glad to see Microsoft has repudiated this study, however this does not
change their overall objective:
http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=174156
"Make no mistake: Microsoft really hates the web. The new browser war may
appear to be about the emergence of Mozilla and friends with their polished
eye-candy interfaces, but it's really about Microsoft versus the W3C. Internet
Explorer is Microsoft's blocking tactic?never to be properly web-compliant,
never to give the W3C a day in the sun?and Longhorn technology is the big-stick
alternative being built. One of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web
as we know it."
FOSS is a roadblock to this goal and Microsoft will not give up easily.
Hopefully increased popularity will continue to win converts to FOSS and allow
others to realize that there are alternatives to the Microsoft hegemony.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
PJ said:
"... I'm only kidding about them
following
my
advice -- I have no knowledge that they followed or
even
knew about my previous suggestion. We've had a huge
upsurge in trolls since I began highlighting the AdTI
story, so maybe
they did, but that isn't proof positive.
If I were AdTI, I'd put out a
press release, but I'm not,
so I'll acknowledge it's only suggestive.
They could be
AdTI operatives, or SCO's, after all. ..."
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that people who
disagree with you on one point or another are SCO
operatives or
trolls.
For example, I brought you to task for what I
regarded
as unjustifiably strident comments about certain
conditions ADTI placed on redistribution of their report.
I still
think that if you don't want to agree to the terms
for downloading the
report, then you just shouldn't do it,
and that you didn't have to
invoke the ghost of "King
Jehoikim of the Bible book of Jeremiah" and
visions of
knives and burning books. I admit that you didn't
directly call me a troll for that, but others here
strongly suggested that.
I think you ought to make clear
to them what you think a troll is.
People here may want to review the "Linux Advocacy
mini-HOWTO" Canons of Conduct, available at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/other-formats/pdf/Advocacy.pdf
(sorry, I don't know how to make that an active link)
where, among other things, it is stated:
"...Refrain from name-calling ... Avoid
hyperbole and
unsubstantiated claims at
all costs. It's unprofessional and will
result in
unproductive discussions. ... Always remember that if you
insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative
experience
may be shared with many others.
..."
You
usually follow that rule fairly well, but you could
have avoided hyperbole
by refraining from the
biblical book-burning reference and asserting
simply that
the manner in which the report is being offered suggests a
lack of confidence that the report will stand up to
informed
criticism. Moreover, as someone else suggested,
the terms under which
the report was being made available
said nothing at all about
prohibiting criticism of the
report, which you and many others were
already doing.
Even though you were not the one to call me
this, I am
not an "ADTI apologist." I have been
running Linux since
about 1994 or 1995, starting with
Slackware continuing with many other
distributions since
then. I admit to forcing my browser
to lie by
saying that I am running Windows most of the
time, but
that prevents
many web sites from annoying me with
"upgrade your browser" messages.
I suggest that you might want to post the
Canons of Conduct
from the Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO on your site for
everyone to read
and to follow.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- Trolls? And anonymous ones, at that - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:54 AM EDT
- Give it a rest - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: 106ja on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Please go back - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- A different kind of troll - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- !? O.K., it was me - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Troll definition - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- Trolls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Yeah, right. - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 12:10 AM EDT
- Article writing style - Authored by: bruce_s on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 06:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: LarryVance on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
Has there been, or is there any information about the Class Action Suit for IPO
issues by 300 people. This is listed in the SEC filings.
---
IAAE - TGIANAL
Larry Vance[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: photocrimes on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
Now this is fun.
First there is the ADTI yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tq/
Which list the contact:
Suite 2400
Montreal, Quebec H3B 4W5
Telephone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Facsimile: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Email: emeritus@adti.net
Contact: Dave Ryan, Gregory Fossedal, Dan Buck
Special thanks to: Gustave de Beaumont, ami de Tocqueville
Google cache gives up the "whole" address:
You can contact the society at: 1000 de la Gauchetiere Street West Suite 2400
Montreal,
Quebec H3B 4W5
Which then points us at the offices of a very large Software & Service
company:
http://www.tibco.com/company/worldwide_offices.jsp?m=b7
This office, same phone exchange btw. Comapny PBX system:
Montreal, Quebec
TIBCO Software Canada Inc.
1000 de la Gauchetiere Street,
Suite 2400
Montreal, Quebec H3B 4W5
Canada
Phone: 514-448-XXXX
Fax: 514-247-XXXX
Who would want to put a dent in OSS? Well have a peek at their
"partners"
http://www.tibco.com/company/partners/service.jsp?m=c1
Just keeps getting better don't it?
---
//A picture is worth a thousand words//[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: greybeard on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
Gee, and I would have bet good money that it is no longer possible to embarrass
the Czar of Redmond. Imagine that. I suppose the check cleared, all the same.
---
-greybeard-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
This cartoon is probably a
more accurate representation of what Uber...errr...Microsoft would really like
to say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
The "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" quote originated with Eric
Raymond, not Linus.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are you sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
"Don't forget, SCO has another teleconference today, Tuesday, at 11
AM Eastern, to tell a drooling world all about SCO's new UNIX
products businesses just can't wait to buy from the company that has shown a
singular propensity to sue its own erstwhile customers and partners when funds
get low"
Is this "drooling with anticipation" or "drooling
because of a lobotomy"? :)
-gumnos
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
Showing ADTI for the coniving disassembling dishonest and unsupported foolish
fantasists that they are, is kind of amusing, but any news on the new court
filings:
SCO v IBM
==-=====
There are two new transcripts on the court dockett. These appear to be of
conferences that we were aware happened, but of which we never previously aware
of the content:
0-0
Filed: 06/09/04
Entered: 06/09/04
Transcript of Proceedings
tn proc
-/-/- - -
blk
1503347
Docket Text: Transcript of Proceedings for date(s) of 10/31/03 Status
Cnf. Court Reporter: Geri Jardine
0-0
Filed: 06/09/04
Entered: 06/09/04
Transcript of Proceedings
tn proc
-/-/- - -
blk
1503348
Docket Text: Transcript of Proceedings for date(s) of 11/21/03 Status
Cnf. Court Reporter: Geri Jardine
Additionally I think SCO's reply in support of their motion to dismiss or stay
IBM's 10th counterclaim was due yesterday 6/14 (I can't see that they've got
another extension, they've already had two, the 2nd of which for 2 weeks)
I'm not sure when due, but I think SCO's reply in opposition to IBM's partial
summary judgement motion is also imminently due, possibly was due yesterday
6/14
Red Hat v SCO
==========
I *think* Red Hat's filing in support of their motion for reconsideration should
be due and done already - but I'm not sure
SCO v DC
=======
I *think* that SCO must have answered DC's motion for summary disposition, and
DC replied in support by now, but I'm not sure
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheOldBear on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
The Help Desk comic for 15 June 2004.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dgetzin on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Not many people noticed but 3 weeks ago the "get the facts" web site
had a new "Study" by Bearing Point. this was not a TCO but a
comparison of aquisition costs for a large and modest size buisness to deploy
Windows, Redhat and SUSE. Of course it concluded that MS was cheaper. the good
news is that they included all the data. The Funny news is that they made a
couple of very large and simple errors in their calulation. Namely the price in
the spreadsheet for Win2003 was much less costly than the pretend negotiated
price. fixing this error reversed the results and 4 days after I noticed it -
it was removed. Coincidently, MS and Bearing Point had also just announced a
deeper relationship. ;-)
MS's statement just conceeds that this FUD attempt failed and they are trying to
buy an ounce of credibility by saying so (with never admitting it was probably
their Idea or $ that got Brown going in the first place).
the Bearing Point incident just shows that MS has a strategy of encouraging
partners and third parties to take shots of all sorts against Linux and if they
stick or have lasting FUD (like SCO) they milk it. Alternatively, if like Brown
or Bearing Point, they FUD is put down or proved lies (or errors), they distance
themselves - with plausible deniability.
Maybe we ought to document in one spot all of the attacks on linux that have
links to MS...
PS I still have the "study" and the teaser text that introduces it.
for anyone interested[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jeetje on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
I know I've been suffering from a lack of sleep lately, so if anybody wants to
call me paranoid I won't hold it against them. Just bear with me, because I
think I see a pattern emerging...
SCO is lagging and dragging, no doubt about it. They are litigating themselves
to kingdom come, and if these lawsuits won't do them in then the fat paychecks
for the management will. There is no doubt in my mind that SCO management is
upping the burnrate on purpose. The big question that had been bugging me up
'till a week ago was: 'What will happen when (not if) SCO goes belly up?'
Now I have spent the better part of an hour reading through the stipulated
protective order, and although IANAL I agree it specifically excludes SCO people
from the happy few who can take a peek at AIX and Dynix/ptx code.
However, one slip of the tongue in the last few months revealed SCO techies have
spent hours on end 'comparing' SCO source code to AIX and Dynix source code. Now
any techie would know better than to do that by hand, so let's assume they made
sure they had a digital version 'made available' to compare to SCO source
code... Is that a strange assumption? Is it more strange to assume they kept
that version on a central server, to streamline the group effort of those
techies? Is it even stranger to assume that server has been backed up each and
every night, to avoid losing all the progress thus far, considering they are
forced to work on a very tight schedule?
And still they want more source code, of each and every version of AIX since the
Stone Ages...
Furthermore, SCO has been exceptionally forthcoming with information of the
ins-n-outs of their business in discovery. They want IBM to do the same,
preferebly from the highest echelons...
So, who will be held accountable, and liable, if and when it comes to light
other parties have gotten hold of the entire AIX codebase? Who would benefit
most from access to the complete codebase of AIX and Dynix/ptx, once SCO goes
belly up? Who would love to see David Boies lose his reputation over 'misplaced'
confidential information?
My prediction for the near future: within the timeframe of bankrupcy, MS will
have a majority of SCO shares...
Please, call me paranoid and put my mind at ease! I will catch some zzzz's
tonight after this morning's exam (the reason for my paranoia ;) but I'd just
love to try and get a better view of the big picture....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
Most of the time this sort of thing gets buried deep in the bowels of a
newspaper. I'm impressed that the article appeared on page B1 of the WSJ and
that it was as long, detailed, and accurate as it is. For those geeky types who
may be unfamiliar with the WSJ, the B section is where the technology news
resides, and its front page has the business news with the major articles.
I believe this qualifies as a major PR success for the Groklaw white hats.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
thanks. i was having trouble last night.
this may explain it.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjdj on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
Based on a lot of the comments I see in here, I am sure that I'll get some flak
for saying this... but I think that the jabs on microsoft technology is somewhat
shallow and probably more destructive for our cause than it has been in the
past.
First off, I am a Linux user. I love to use Linux. I get frustrated with many
of the problems with Windows and microsoft products. But I ALSO get frustrated
with linux and open source products.
Now I am definately NOT pro microsoft. As far as a company goes, I think they
are pretty darn aweful. Their tactics are un-ethical at best.
But lets be honest here for a moment. Attacking microsoft technology is not
going to sound very convincing to those that are the ones in most need of
confincing.
Sure, most of microsofts technology is built on the bones of shattered
competition and shoddy dealings. But for the most part, it 'seems' to work
better than linux.
I just installed linux on my wifes computer, and she is not complaining too
much. But the Lexmark inkjet printer I have does not seem to want to work on
linux (and I have spent about 8 hours trying to get it to work, it took maybe 5
minutes to get working in windows). There is some funky font spacing issue
which makes some webpages look aweful. Not to mention that so many webpages out
there dont work well on anything except IE. In order to run the latest games
in linux I must use Wine, which is not very Ideal. First time loading of
applications in linux is slower (untill all the different the libraries get in
ram). Whenever I play movie clips on that computer, there are sorts of blips
and bloops and skipped parts. Clips play just fine on the same computer in
Windows Media Player.
Now, the reason why things work better on windows is a sad story of strong-arm
tactics, anti-competitive behaviour, and probably a dozen other things, for
which (in my opinion) they should be held accountable for.
But if you sit a CEO of a company down in front of a computer with a printer,
scanner and CD-burner, and get him to install Windows XP, he probably wont have
much trouble getting the software and hardware working. Now get him to install a
Linux distro on that same hardware, and he will probably have a very different
experience.
Servers on the other hand are a different story. Microsoft servers are a joke.
This whole comment is mostly about the desktop, which is where MOST people get
their first-hand experience from.
Anyway, I've rambled on already, and not even made all the points I wanted to
make, but I think I will stop here.
In summary, attack microsofts morals, business decisions, legal whoring, and
other things, but I think we discredit linux if we attack microsoft technology
saying it is inferior or doesnt work, etc. Because for most peoples experience,
it does work, and they wouldnt beleive anything else we have to say.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
Red
Hat exec resigns just before results
The Linux firm's chief
financial officer has announced he is leaving to 'pursue other interests' just
three days before the publication of its quarterly
results
--- My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't
understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
Here's a thought: now that news.google.com seems to be reachable (most of the
time :-/ ) I'm perdiodically doing a search for:
microsoft adti
unhelpful distraction
...just to prime the pump, as it were.
So
far, news.google.com seems to be unaware:
"Your search - microsoft adti
unhelpful distraction - did not match any
documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled
correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try
fewer keywords.
Also, you can browse today's headlines on the Google News
homepage."
I don't know if this will really *do* anything, but what the
hey...
t_t_b --- I immediately archive every Groklaw page to which I
make a comment, for the record. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CustomDesigned on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
Instead of always railing against the latest evil schemes from Microsoft, I
often like to imagine what Microsoft would do were they to have a corporate
"born again" experience. Corporations do change. Remember that IBM
was once every bit as evil and rapacious as Microsoft, fiercely defending their
mainframe monopoly by any means, legal or illegal. Like MS, they were the
subject of several anti-trust lawsuits - all delayed until irrelevant.
But people retired, and new people came in. Around 1980, the new people
experimented with a radical idea implemented by an independent business unit:
produce a small computer with completely open specs. The IBM XT was born.
Unlike most other computer products (outside the hobby industry), the IBM XT
Technical Manual (I still treasure a copy) had complete circuit diagrams of
every adapter card, and a breadboard card for developing your own adapter! To
IBM's surprise, the IBM XT was wildly profitable - despite the lack of vendor
lock in - and remained so through the IBM AT. The lack of lock in eventually
bit them as the project "forked" in a battle for the successor to AT.
IBM's MCA was overshadowed and eventually replaced by competing visions of the
successor to the AT bus standard.
But IBM had seen the light. Open technologies were like fissionable materials.
Dangerous from the point of view of providing stable repeatable profits, but
enabling incredibly powerful chain reactions of innovation. They then began to
find ways to make a stable profit from open technology, and revamped their
coporate culture to implement them.
So imagine that Bill Gates and Steve Balmer die in a tragic accident, or are
born again at a tent revival. In the ensuing upheaval, Microsoft reinvents
itself. What would be the distinctive features of an honest Microsoft? How
would they keep their profit intact while behaving ethically? Could they be
even more profitable by harnessing open technologies rather than fighting them?
If you're not bored yet, here are some of my ideas. The new Microsoft would
have products with two distinctive features: marketed to and designed for
non-geeks (a larger market than geeks) and running on commodity hardware. They
would provide the best of Apple (non-geek focus) and Linux (commodity hardware).
They would stay with Windows, but immediately provide open specifications for
all levels of Windows technology (no more secret APIs). Pieces of Windows would
become open source, with the goal to eventually open source all of it after
copyright issues are resolved. Thanks to the open specifications, open source
groups would begin to provide clean room implementations of encumbered
components.
To maintain a competitive advantage, the new MS would fiercely defend its
trademark. There would be a branding program for 3rd party products. To be
called "Windows Friendly", a product would have to pass a battery of
usability standards - key to maintaining a consistent experience for the
non-geek target market. "Windows Friendly" products would also have
to pass a compatibility suite ensuring that it works with off the shelf versions
of Windows (as opposed to depending on some open source enhancement).
By opening just the specs at first, and incrementally opening the source, the
new MS would amortize the fallout of all the security problems newly brought to
light by the new open policy. Thanks to the open policy, 3rd party security
hardened versions of Windows and Windows components would being to appear. They
could not be called Windows, of course. MS would incorporate the best of these
into its official offerings. Geeks would be comfortable experimenting with the
unofficial versions, but the far larger non-geek target market would stick with
blessed versions - maintaining Microsoft's profit for as long as the company
remains a credible steward of the Windows standard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Open letter to Ms. Didio,
Perhaps you will agree, Ms. Didio,
that extreme views are
less conducive to knowledge. At this point, many of your
published advise has, shall we say, been cast into doubt
by history. It is my
belief that the open source community
is, by and large, surprisingly open (*)
minded.
Perhaps, Laura, you could find a forum to issue your
current perspectives, and perhaps those that found your
original views less
than realistic, might be given a
better opinion of your ability to analyze the
rapidly
changing information technology industry. Surely Microsoft
would want
you to salvage your reputation with its worthy
competitor, GNU/Linux.
As an example, Bill Claybrook boldly said (in an article
referenced by Groklaw):
"The Get the Facts program Microsoft
initiated a
couple of
years ago that consists of hiring various
organizations to
produce studies that make Microsoft Windows a big winner
over Linux in just about any way that two operating
systems could be
compared is an embarrassment. No single
operating system dominates another
in every possible way
that they can be compared."
Laura, I
sincerely ask, what is your opinion? --- Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface, [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: raynfala on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
Why?
No class.
Let's look at what Mr. Brown
has to say for himself, now that he's been publicly spanked by his
benefactors:
I asked Mr. Brown why we should believe him
rather than Prof. Tannenbaum -- who, incidentally, is no fan of Linux. "There
are just too many conflicting interviews and
facts," Mr. Brown replied. "When
those guys get their stories straight, maybe we can make some progress."
Mr. Brown says he never maintained it was impossible for Mr. Torvalds to
have written Linux, just "highly unlikely." And he calls Mr. Toptygin "a great
kid," albeit "a little caught up in the fanaticism of the Linux movement, which
is cool with me."
Where to begin...
"Too many
conflicting interviews..." Ah heh, considering that some of his recent
interviews weren't interviews at all, but the lifting of posts from a
semi-private web-based discussion forum, that takes a lot of nerve to say.
Considering that nearly every interviewee has insisted that Mr. Brown twisted
their words, that takes even more nerve to say.
"...and facts."
Considering that Mr. Brown has demonstrated that he has no understanding of the
fundamentals of computer science (or chooses to ignore them), and considering
that Mr. Brown has yet to consult the source of Linux about its origins, it
takes an extra-large helping of nerve to lecture prominent scholars about their
mastery of the facts.
So now it was "highly unlikely" that Linus wrote
Linux? Okay, by that logic, all entrepreneurial ventures that have ever
succeeded should have their histories picked over with a fine-tooth comb; all of
them should be considered suspect, because all entrepreneurial ventures are
highly unlikely to succeeed (1 in 10, at best), and therefore, something
nefarious must have contributed to their success.
Now that Mr. Toptygin has
demonstrated that he wasn't willing to lie for monetary compensation, and even
went that extra mile and exposed Mr. Brown's lack of ethics, Mr. Brown sees fit
to denigrate him as a kid and a fanatic.
Yesiree, a class act all the way,
that Mr. Brown.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: archivist on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
Yup affecting me in UK [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
An update:
"...Google pulled references for akamais dns servers a short
period ago. they are presently serving their own dns
requests..."
Anyone still usign *.akadns.net or Akamai DNS
in general may be off the air until either Akamai resolves the issue, or
individual web sites fall back to their own DNS (they *do* have backup DNS,
don't they :-/ )
hmm..
*.yahoo.com seems to be back; SCOX is up
0.19 (3.86%) at the moment.
Go figure!
t_t_b --- I immediately
archive every Groklaw page to which I make a comment, for the record. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
I am sure most of you hae seen this before...
Totosplatz reminded me of it so I thought I would share.
I believe credit goes to www.annoyance.org
How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?
1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb
could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...
another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
"lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
bulb" is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this
discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and
therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the
best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and
what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected
URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group
which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers
and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle
the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about
light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it
all over again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
You know, I think this is a good time to point out some things that bother me
about some folks in the Linux crowd, of which I definitely consider myself a
member.
I think that way too many people think of being pro-Linux as equivalent to being
anti-Microsoft. Why should that be? Why take something positive, like the
Open-Source movement, and attach something negative, like a hate for Microsoft,
to it? This is software, not a religion.
Microsoft is a company out to make MONEY, that's it. The fact that they make
software is secondary. If you had a company that produced software, but then
had the vision, drive, and opportunity to revolutionize the entire computer
industry and get filthy rich in the process, wouldn't you do so? No? OK, well
what if Microsoft called you today and offered you a billion dollars a year to
help them defeat Linux? At some point for everyone, it's all about the money.
Here’s another thing that gets me. I don't know why people seem so shocked and
when something Microsoft says or does looks like a conspiracy to kill the
competition and sell more products. Of course it is, that's the whole point.
Why else would they say or do anything? Forget the naïve notion that Microsoft
(or any other company, for that matter) truly wants to help the computer
industry and not promote their own agenda (making money) in the process. Who
really believes that IBM and Novell have embraced Open-Source just because they
think it's the right thing to do for their fellow man? Please. I hope they do
believe that, but the bottom line is that they are here to kill the competition
and sell more products. They both see an opportunity to revolutionize the
computer industry and get filthy rich. Only this time, it’s with Linux.
We’ve got to stop comparing the agenda of the Open-Source community, which truly
does work for the good of their fellow man, to any company. Every company’s
only true goal is to make money. End of story. Whether or not the path a
company chooses for making money is righteous or not all depends on your
perspective. If Microsoft were paying me a billion dollars a year, you can bet
their actions would seem pretty righteous to me.
Linux and the Open-Source movement will succeed or fail based on its own merits
and the work of folks like us who believe in it and work to improve it. There's
really no need to talk trash about Microsoft or any other company, and frankly,
doing so makes us all look like a bunch of unprofessional hippie zealots.
Pointing out the error of their ways is fine, but let’s keep it civil, not wild
and ranting. And another thing: please spell out Microsoft or abbreviate it as
MS. Writing it as M$, Micro$haft, or some other such nonsense is just plain
childish.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: fxbushman on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Monoplies - Authored by: penfold on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: gray_eminence on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: ujay on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- Fair's fair - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- Microsoft - Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Holy cow! - Authored by: gray_eminence on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- I respect Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- I don't mind Microsoft trying to sell its softwrae, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- Amazing - Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 07:57 AM EDT
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
You're smarting simply because somebody hit a raw nerve somewhere. Your
problem, not PJ's.
You've got to learn some day: you just don't get anywhere by trying to be nice
to everyone. Sometimes you've got to be brash to make your point. Try this for
example:
"Please don't eat meat, because it's so cruel to the
animal you're eating, and I don't so you shouldn't".
Yeah, right - that'll work. Actually, why not try:
"This cute bull calf, is destined for BurgerMasters.
He's dying to meat you."
If what you're saying doesn't offend at least *someone*, you're either talking
about something hopelessly boring and unimportant, or you're not getting your
point across. Toothless, politically correct mumblings do not get people's
attention, nor do they make an impression - sometimes you've got to be
pragmatic, or stick your neck out - at least if you want to make any headway.
If you don't like the analogy of clubbing seals, then it simply shows you that
you have contradictions within your own value system. To me, it's just words,
and it conveyed the sentiment perfectly. I'm a vegan (ghasp) and I take animal
rights *VERY* seriously.
PJ is outspoken, yes - but actually, not half as outspoken as some (not me)
would like to see. Personally, I feel she strikes an excellent balance in a
hostile environment. Some people have the courage to (a) post identifiably or
(b) e-mail PJ personally when they have problems with her writing. From this
perspective it appears that you don't have the courage of your convictions -
what, exactly did you say on *your* website about the situation? A link to your
article would be handy, but I doubt it actually exists. If you can do better,
get out from your ivory tower and show the world your mettle - you have *no*
*idea* how much PJ has given of herself to bring GrokLaw to you and keep doing
it day after night.
PJ doesn't expect everyone to agree with her - she knows the world better than
that. Come back with a real argument when you've proved your worth on your own
merits -with your own website that covers the fiaSCO and all other threats to
GNU and Linux software as well as GrokLaw does, and then maybe you can
criticise.
You know you can't do it, so stop trolling.
*** Shame on me for feeding a troll, but I felt it had to be said. ***
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fxbushman on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
Microsoft did not repudiate AdTI's book because it is a collection of lies. They
repudiated it because it is widely known to be a collection of lies. I
may be cynical, but I have to say that had the public reaction been otherwise
Microsoft would never have spoken against Samizdat. We know that on
numerous other occasions MS has not only paid for but publicised lying reports
on Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
If original poster logged in and didn't posted as Anonymous I'll agree with you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N. on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
...and the parent post made some valid points. PJ *does* get carried away at
times. Not too much, but just enough over the line to register. Is the fame
going to PJ's head? Of course it will, to some extent, as anyone given the level
of attention PJ has been given over the past year would also be affected by it.
I also think she shoould tone down the seal-clubber-esque prose. I'm not saying
cut down on the witticisms, it's just that the seal-clubbing phrase leaves a
nasty taste in my mouth.
The dilemma of "is this still a blog, or is it now something bigger such
that PJ now has additional responsibilities?" is also a valid observation.
I happen to believe that it's still a blog and should be treated as such. Why
should a blogger change his/her perspective just because it's read by thousands
of people?
As for the comments posted here... well, it's a reflection of the Linux
community, and there IS a significant proportion who do the M$, MicroShaft,
MicroSucks, etc etc ad infinitum. I dislike that sort of name-calling and think
it reflects badly on the community, but it's impossible to remove that fraction
of the community without also losing a good chunk of knowledge and insight that
they can provide. That's just the way a hell of a lot of Linux users are. I have
my own theories about why that is, but now isn't the time to spark off THAT
particular flame-fest. Let's just say that there's are reasons why the Linux
zealot stereotype exists in its current form.
Bottom line is: People, let's be as objective as possible here. Leave the
hyperbole to the zealots.
N.
---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
Three new SCO press releases:
1. SCO(R) UnixWare(R) 7.1.4 Brings UNIX
Security and
Reliability to Small Businesses and Replicated
Sites
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040615/latu073_1.html
3. SCO
Announces Broad Array of New Unix Products, Channel Support and Training
Programs
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/ww
w/story/06-15-2004/0002193535&EDATE=
3. SCO Delivers SCOx Web
Services Substrate
(WSS) in New UnixWare
7.1.4
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040615/latu072_1.html
From
this:
The SCOx WSS components announced today include: Ericom
PowerTerm Host
Publisher, SCO WebFace, and SCO SQL encapsulator. These
components provide a
powerful foundation for building next-generation business
solutions within a Service
Oriented Architecture (SOA).
And
that would be the same Web Face that SCO acquired from Vultus.
And that
would be the Vultus property which they recently realized was worthless
according to their most recent 10-Q:
Consequently, the
Company has concluded that no significant future cash flows
related to its Vultus assets would be realized. The Company performed an
impairment
analysis of its recorded goodwill
related to the Vultus reporting unit in
accordance
with SFAS No. 142. Additionally, an impairment analysis of the
intangible
assets was
performed in
accordance with SFAS No. 144. As a result of these analyses, the
Company wrote-down the carrying value of its goodwill related to the
Vultus
acquisition from $1,166,000 to $0 and
wrote-down intangible assets related to
its
Vultus acquisition from $973,000 to $0.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
Congratulations to PJ, Groklaw, and the FOSS community. A masterful excercise in
our free speech rights. This is a great victory and one worth celebrating! I
think Shao Lin would be impressed PJ, you take a day off celebrate, go shopping
and three days later MicroSoft caves in and pays lip service to serving
customers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Call me a troll but I agree for the most part. I honestly don't know if
critical comments are "usually" deleted but they sometimes are. I
know because my comments get deleted. Sometimes it makes no sense because they
aren't even critical, just relaying information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
I only brought enough Troll Snacks(tm) for one. Here's an idea, though: start
your own blog! There, you can really stretch out about your problems with
Groklaw. Go to Blogger and set one up. It takes seconds. Once you're set up, you
and your pals can write your anti-PJ rants to your heart's content without fear
of being deleted, rebutted, abused, or whatever (unless you allow comments).
Then simply post a link here. Every time I post a link here, I get a gajillion
hits.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
The only reason Microsoft is now distancing themselves from AdTI is because
Microsoft hired a pig to do their arguing for them, and now Bill Gates is
covered in mud. This is just Gates trying to wash that mud off - and I ain't
buying it. If this hadn't gone down in flames, Microsoft would have done it
again. And here's an idea: the next time Microsoft tries something lame
like this, let the first one or two go by as seeming successes. Then lay
into them and whoever uncritically shilled for Microsoft. No journalist
wants to have it publically demonstrated that he's a lazy shill, so do this once
or twice and journalists will be a lot more leery of shilling for Microsoft.
Well, except for those like Enderle and Didio who don't do anything but shill
for Microsoft anyway... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
I think the original poster has a point. I'm finding this site less and less
useful (as an interested reader following the issues covered by it) as it
becomes more and more "rah-rah."
While PJ may not care about my thoughts or the parent poster's thoughts, my
(unsolicited) suggestion is that she should. I generally agree with the Groklaw
community's assessment of the SCO case, Microsoft and the AdTI report. However,
the cheap shots she is starting to take make her arguments and the reasoned
arguments presented by this website much less persuasive.
Some of the threads to this post are indicative of the increasing hostility to
constructive criticism. As someone who believes in the ideals supported by this
site, I think that's a shame.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
"but when certain members of the community voice their own opinions they
are told to leave because this is "PJ's personal site""
Certain so-called members of the community can't take a hint and move on when
they are told to. I suggest that they start their own blog instead of taking up
space whining on groklaw about PJ's editorial style, which is anything but
namby-pamby - it's about as irrelevant as some corporate droid get hung up on
the fact that I swear a lot when I do software development, without paying any
attention to the fact my software is better written than most.
PJ is entitled to express her editorial opinion just as the Wall Street Journal,
the New York Times and the Washington Post express their own editorial opinions:
I respect all these opinions because they are delivered with integrity but at
the end of the day, I care only that the reporting of the facts is complete and
objective. Similarly, at the end of the day, I care only that the analysis of
groklaw be objective, because I rely on it for certain key decisions. And I
never lose sight of the fact that PJ's and the groklaw community's opinions are
not necessarily in lockstep with mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: technoCon on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
Does this mean Microsoft won't be paying AdTI's invoice? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
Microsoft is repudiating the AdTI report because it backfired.
However, we can be sure that this will not be the last case of Microsoft
funding FUD by an organization that will present itself as independent. I wonder
what the next case will be?
It would be nice if there was a website that focused on countering Microsoft
FUD. As it is, it gets done, but in a scattered way. There ought to be a
single place that would collect all the different refutations. That way people
could focus their efforts and be more thorough, and it would be a place to refer
reporters and others.
The site could collect past instances of Microsoft FUD and spot patterns, like
the pr rhetoric it uses. For instance, no matter what Microsoft does, it always
says it is to server its customers better.
I would start such a site myself, but I am too busy with other tasks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- some fud domains - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- some fud domains - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- some fud domains - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 03:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: brooker on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
Quote>"The very worst thing about this is that criticism is always
deleted. It's impossible to read the other side of the story because the
"moderators" are purposefully deleting anything that doesn't glow with
praise for PJ."<Quote
=====================================================
Hmmm, if it's true that criticism is ALWAYS deleted, then how did I get to read
your post?
Very strange.
I'm thinkin' that PJ has always been pretty sharp with her wit, at least she has
been since I've been following her writings. She is at the forefront these days
in the battle to keep the FUD from overflowing...she can't stop it completely,
but this site has helped to educate more than just "The Community". I
am a good example of that.
And if it can educate "Aunt Jane" or "Uncle Fred" from down
the street, then maybe it can also educate the "Linux zealots" (as
I've seen them called) to the idea that name calling and Microsoft bashing -
just for the sake of bashing - doesn't produce results.
I think most people that come here to Groklaw already know better.
I don't hate Windows, I am old enough to understand that hating an inanimate
thing is foolish. I DO hate the direction that Microsoft is heading with
Longhorn and their patents push. And now that I have learned more of their past
history of business dealings, I am less inclined to continue supporting their
products with my future dollars.
PJ's goal with this web site (as I understand it) was providing - in one
centralized place - resources for interested people to learn about the SCO law
suits, and to strip away the FUD and expose the facts.
If along the way she also expresses her opinions in a wickedly funny and pointed
way, that's fine too. She makes the documentation available for folks to read
and make up their own minds. She doesn't ask anyone to just take her word for
anything.
From what I have read this year, folks like PJ who undertake to fight the FUD
cannot be wishy-washy about it.
It ain't a war for shrinking violets or sissies. If PJ tweaks the lion's tail
occasionally, then so be it.
If she were my daughter, I'd be proud as punch of her grit and courage. I think
she's aware that she'll never be able to please everyone, so the next best thing
is to be true to herself.
I think she does that admirably.
...And, being a bit of a shrinking violet myself, I can't believe I've actually
posted here twice in two days...hmmmm...maybe courage is catching.
brooker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AIB on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
For those computer scientists with an abiding interest in creating and promoting
superior software, allowing peer review and market forces to select the best of
breed -- Microsoft Windows has for decades been a most unhelpful distraction.
-AIB.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
- this is 'reasonable'?
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
When even best friend and bosom-buddy Microsoft abandons them, there is no hope
they will ever succeed in court. Microsoft has to wash up, to avoid
deep-pocket-seeking lawyers from coming after them when SCO collapses.
As "friends" go, SCO has lost:
- the friendship of the open source community
- the friendship of judges they've lied to
- the friendship of small investors
- the friendship of large investors RBC and BayStar
- the friendship of employees
- the friendship of customers
- the friendship of co-workers
- the friendship of partners
- the friendship of the "Evil Empire"
- the "friendship" of a $10M + lawyer who still hasn't even shown
up for court. And maybe a singing Senator too?
- and, one hopes, the friendship of the SEC, Attorney General, and other
offices who should protect the above folks, fairly and without payoffs to look
the other way, but have so far failed (miserably) to do their jobs. What's up,
fellas? Afraid of what will come to light?
But maybe, just maybe, Darl, Kevin, Chris, Blake, Ralph, and the Canopy and SCOG
BoD members can still make some friends:
- the new judges we all hope they'll meet
- the bailiffs and court guards
- the jailhouse guards
- Bubba and his buddies
- the rest of the folks in the shower room, one at a time and with fake
smiles. Just like they tried to do to us.
Stock down, earnings down, company down, friends down, investors down, employees
down. Yup, Darl you old cowboy - you sure know how to run a company. Right
into the ground.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
What does M$ mean by this? What is an "Unhelpful Distraction"?
Is an "unhelpful Distraction" better than a "helpful
distraction"?
Did they intend for it to be a "helpful focusing" or "helpful
concentration"?
What is "Unhelpful" about it? The fact that it is untrue, was found
out, or that they sponsored it?
Why is it a distraction? What was it supposed to distract from? Or is it
unhelpful because it became a distraction, like an unscooped pile of FUD on its
own?
We are getting into the realm of 'nonliteral copying' here. This item in itself
is becoming an unhelpful distraction to the writer, reader, subjects and
certainly the work undone here on the desk next to this key.....
This is a phrase for the Groklaw hall of fame.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
Microsoft called the AdTI report an "unhelpful distraction." They did
not call it "incorrect," or "deceitful." They did not
comment on its ludicrous "methodology." They did not venture any
opinion on it conclusion.
If Microsoft had any sense of fair play or business integrity, they would have
said that the report was wrong, not jus an "unhelpful distraction." As
it is they appear to be attempting to distance themselves from a disaster fo
their own making. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Yup, it was so blatantly false even their stomach couldn't bear it. Though they
advertised Microsoft to be cheaper not so long ago :)
This doesn't sound good for ADTI, most likely they won't get fund from Microsoft
and no one else will trust their word either.
Next time they (or their followers) will be wiser, and come out with a subtler
lie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
In the more than 1 year since all this litigation began, there hasn't been a
better week for GNU/Linux than this past week! I sure hope it keeps up.
And PJ, no M$ didn't listen to you. They only listen to their marketing
strategy. They'll spin anything for any reason to better their position in the
marketplace. My belief is that when the experts interviewed by KB repudiated him
(repeatedly), M$ knew that in the public image, they were tainted. They did what
they had to "save face".
We're winning some really important battles, but the war is not over. Keep up
the vigilance!
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
On SCO's scousource site is a chart which says it is by Eric Levenitz (sp?)
I looked at the SCO chart, then located the original of the same chart
If you compare the SCO version Linux is a Cyan (light green blue line)
highlighted. Prior to Linux 0.01 is a dotted cyan line going back to UNIX V7
(implying Linux 0.01 is descended from V7 or something)
I do not see anything like this on the original.
Thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: edumarest on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Quote lifted from the AP article that PJ links to in her preamble:
"For his research, Mr. Brown hired a University of Maryland, College Park,
student, Alexey Toptygin, to run software that could find matches between Minix
and the early Linux. But there were none. We know this not because it is in the
study -- Mr. Brown conspicuously omits mention of that. Instead, Mr. Toptygin,
appalled by the way Mr. Brown was ignoring the evidence, posted his work online.
(He also refused his paycheck.)"
'nuff said.
---
...if you cannot measure it then you cannot troubleshoot it, you can only
guess...
SuSE 9.0 on hp pavilion ze 4560us[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
I have long thought the time and space spent on ADT and K Brown had extended too
long. However gaining this acknowledgment from MS was well worth it and totally
undermines the "book." Obviously you have learned long ago not to go
by what others such as I think. Well done.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Off the Yahoo! Finance board:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&boar
d=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=145328&thr=145328&c
ur=145328&dir=d
...which actually provides a link to Scott Lemon's
blog:
http://the.inevitable.org/anism/
<
p>
"...I am out.
After just slightly more than a year, I am no
longer working at The SCO Group. It has been quite an experience..."
I'll
bet...
t_t_b
--- I immediately archive every Groklaw page to which I
make a comment, for the record. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
"I asked Mr. Brown why we should believe him rather than Prof. Tannenbaum
-- who, incidentally, is no fan of Linux. "There are just too many
conflicting interviews and facts," Mr. Brown replied. "When those guys
get their stories straight, maybe we can make some progress." "
I guess Prof Tannebaum, Dr Ritchie and all the others who were
"interviewed" are the real source of KB FUD, ah, confusion. And we all
know it's not KB's fault, right?
What a walking pile of nonhuman matter! (I can't post what I really feel and
think, but to say KB is detestable is a true understatement).
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nanook on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
a request for "Constructive Criticism" on this site?
Or in the
alternative; who was the unhelpful person in your formative years that led you
to believe that you have a right to voice your opinion with regard to how, what,
or why, someone holds an opinion, or acts as an individual or otherwise in a
manner with which you happen to disagree?
Where's the proof that you are
entitled to attempt to "correct" the behaviour of anyone not under your care,
and for whom you were never asked to assume responsibility?
Just
curious...
Charlie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Turin on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
Any kind of 'activist' type web site degenerates over time into this kind of
thing. It's basically this: the principals are used to the antagonist (in this
case SCO). They see them in a worse and worse light as time goes on. The
invective gets harsher and less respectful. The assumption is that everyone is
on board here. There is an ego factor as well. The more kudos the site gets,
the more overblown the rhetoric seems to grow.
The problem is that the newcomer and the only peripherally involved do not grow
more intolerant of the antagonist over time. They see insults against the
antagonist as detracting from the message of the site. Therefore, this site
grows more and more ineffective with time.
I note that my reading of this site has perceptibly declined in recent times,
for instance. I don't think the process is reversible in any event. Once you
start to lose audience, the hemmohraging rarely stops. It's hard to get back
into the correct frame of mind after you've crossed the line into unprofessional
baiting of your target, and almost impossible to attract back the readers after
they've grown disgusted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
A year ago they would have waited until after the book was out before distancing
themselves from this wreck-in-progress. They are starting to get the idea that
you should stop gardening when even astroturf turns Brown.
Their FUD has always failed after a time because they don't understand FOSS, nor
does it work for the encrusted pot to call the polished copper kettle
"black" as when they attempt to do a security comparison (which often
coincides with the latest worm attack).
The least they could have done is to have a second-rate history-of-unix book
written with the linux-as-leprosy mentioned strongly, but only by implication.
Innuendo is more difficult to counter than obvious bald-faced lies.
Or they could actually have rewritten Windows along the UNIX paradigm (modular,
use appropriate tool, text files...) to create something as stable and secure as
Linux. Right now it has those dozens of services and open ports, but because it
isn't modular, they aren't independent. They wanted and got a blob.
KDE/GNU/Linux is thousands of small, independent pieces - each comprehensible,
so it is easy to know what might be affected by a change, or the potential for
security holes. Or even how to use and program the pieces. Or get them working
from the Zaurus (which now has Firebird!) up to mainframes. They could learn
something.
But they would have to unlearn too much first.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
I might as well throw this link in, personally it's not a great surprise, but
YMMV and it's a balanced, though slightly tabloid-ish piece from Mr Lyons.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/enterprisetech/2004/06/15/cz_dl_0615ibmlinux.ht
ml
My summary would be "IBM still sells proprietary software. Salesmen
handling proprietary accounts want to keep their commission thankyou very much.
Competitors outraged..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
http://news.
zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39157640,00.htm
'Nuff said.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
If they can control what is "presented" to search queries, then they
have more control over what people "know". Those people aren't
stupid, they're just unprincipled.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
If you play the Windows installation disc backwards you will be able to hear
satanic messages.
However, if you play the installation disc forwards something even worse
happens: it installs Windows![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eddsouza on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
People, sorry if someone has already posted these; I just thought I'd bunch them
together in one post.
The hilarious part of this one's that Ashlee Vance has dished it out to ol' M$ (a bit),
and the page footer contains the usual M$ Partner Program advert bit...talk
about misplaced advertising!
Here's half the article:
There is
comic value in Microsoft swallowing some pride to keep microsoft.com up with the
help of Linux caching servers. Grizzle, grumble, why must we be associated with
this cancerous free software collective?
In the end, Microsoft could not let
the association go on forever. As an IT leader, it's important to at least give
the appearance your products are good enough for the masses. So, it's back to
Windows 2003 Server and IIS 6.0 again
Also in the
news today:
Eddie
P.S. Not that it's really relevant, but
great news for Yahoo Mail users:
Yahoo responding to
Gmail with you guessed it, more storage
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 15 2004 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
from another thread? Get a
freakin' life! --- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: defender2803 on Wednesday, June 16 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
Posted to ADTi's website
Maybe you should start questioning your investors. Who actually owns DOS? Bill
Gates bought it from SCP and then modified it for his use and IBM's. Where did
Windows come from? Xerox? Has your money supplier ever created his own
software? All his are derivatives and knockoffs of others.
Minix is open source and freely distributed. Why not use it as a pattern for
another OS? Bill Gates has done it for more than 2 decades. Has Ken Brown ever
produced an operating system? Maybe he should try and see what he gets? Does
open source destroy democracy? Does Microsoft already rule the computer world?
Does ADTi quash free thinking and, from your mission statement, "...the
basic goodness, perfectability, and nobility of mankind and of the human
community"? Before you throw accusations out and throw out quotes from
people you wish to drag through the mud, take a good look in the mirror and say
to yourself, "Am I part of this, 'basic goodness, perfectability, and
nobility of mankind and of the human community'"? You say you don't rush
to judgement, but you Ken Brown, you just did? Maybe you should ask Eric
Raymond what he meant instead of putting up his quote as if a man on a cross,
before all the people to see, and ridiculing the man on it for his own thoughts
and beliefs. I weep at your so called "nobility of mankind". May
you, Microsoft, and SCO rule the future with all your tyrannical exploits to
destroy that which is good.
I posted this to ADTi's idiotic "Ken Brown needs help learning
English" postings. I hope they actually read it and follow there own
mission statement. Sad.
pf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Elliott on Thursday, June 17 2004 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
(drops cloak of anonymity)
blush
Why, thank you. I did a few
checks on earlier versions and it looks like this ugly code entered MS-DOS
between versions 3.3 and 4.0 (in date terms, somewhere between 1987 and 1988, ).
The previous version (3.3) only seems to check for the first 2 characters being
equal to "3." and the final digit being less than "1".
This doesn't
surprise me particularly. MS-DOS 4.0 had a reputation for being buggy; many
users refused to upgrade to it. There are apparently
other corrupt-your-disk bugs in MS-DOS
4.0
so I'm quite willing to believe that this was another one that no-one
noticed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 17 2004 @ 07:17 AM EDT |
In a front page article today in:
USATODAT
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-06-16-linux-munich_x.htm
German city picks Linux over Microsoft
By Byron Acohido, USA TODAY
SEATTLE - In a milestone loss for Microsoft (MSFT), the city of
Munich has affirmed its decision to make the switch from Windows
and Office to competing Linux software on 14,000 desktop PCs. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|