| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Groklaw gets some anti-Linux competition (ZDNet)Groklaw gets some anti-Linux competition (ZDNet)Posted Oct 15, 2004 18:40 UTC (Fri) by who-me (guest, #25426)Parent article: Groklaw gets some anti-Linux competition (ZDNet)
Thanks for the heads up SCO. As an ISP, I'll be sure to redirect all prosco.net requests to groklaw.net!
(Log in to post comments)
Better idea Posted Oct 15, 2004 22:38 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] If you did that as an ISP, it would be illegal. But there is nothing illegal about large numbers of well-read sites including the following HTML somewhere on their home page:
<a hef="http://groklaw.net/">prosco</a> People searching for prosco with Google will then see groklaw.net listed first.
Better idea Posted Oct 16, 2004 0:26 UTC (Sat) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] How to link to sites without giving them any of your site's "Google Juice":
# step 1. Put this in $DOCUMENT_ROOT/robots.txt
# step 2. Put this in httpd.conf
Step 3. To link to the evil example.com just make it...
<a href="/airgap/http://example.com/">example.com</a> sux!
Better idea Posted Oct 16, 2004 6:29 UTC (Sat) by sholden (guest, #7881) [Link] Which would be aremarkably silly thing to do if you are trying to influence google search results...
Better idea Posted Oct 21, 2004 23:23 UTC (Thu) by jmason (guest, #13586) [Link] or, alternatively -- for non-Lynx browsers:<a href="javascript:self.location='http://example.com/'"> example.com </a> also sux!
Groklaw gets some anti-Linux competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 15, 2004 23:53 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] As an ISP, I'll be sure to redirect all prosco.net requests to groklaw.net! Why on earth would you want to do that? SCO's public pronouncements have been its own worst enemy through this whole thing. Let them talk, let people see it. Beyond being the right thing to do anyway, it will doubtless lead to some good laughs and evidence for SCO's opponents.
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 17, 2004 15:50 UTC (Sun) by JohnnyComeEarly (guest, #25449) [Link] Somehow I really don't believe your an ISP. Get out of the basement, kid.
Groklaw attracts basically the same crowd with respect to rabid belief in the Linux platform as Slashdot. So 90+ percent of all comments are "we rock, SCO is lame" Somehow I think the Prosco site will get the same group only to post" we rock, SCO is lame". So what is the point of them having comments at all.
Groklaw is a very one sided site. Prosco will be the same. Most people, Slashdotter's excepted, beleive the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 17, 2004 21:19 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Let the legal papers speak for themselves. You have to be neither a rabidbeliever in the Linux platform nor a legal whiz kid to see that SCO are digging their own grave, and deep. If »most people« really agree that »the truth is somewhere in the middle«, it would be interesting to hear what this belief is based on. It sure can't be due to the proof SCO has consistently failed -- in spite of various court orders to the contrary -- to present for more than one and a half years now. To anybody who after following the legal record (never mind Groklaw) still believes SCO have anything resembling a case, I have a bridge in New York to sell. In excellent condition, too. Anselm
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 18, 2004 10:41 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] To anybody who after following the legal record (never mind Groklaw) still believes SCO have anything resembling a caseUnfortunately SCO's lawyers appear to be quite expert in prolonging the pain. For example, they are now asking the judge permission to amend their original complaint against IBM for the second time. IMHO this is another good indication they did not have any case to begin with, but they might well succeed in tiring the opposition with legal shenanigans...
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 18, 2004 16:05 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] they did not have any case to begin with, but they might well succeed in tiring the opposition with legal shenanigans..Uh, the Novell, AutoZone, Daimler-Chrysler and RedHat suits aside, the real opposition is IBM -- you remember, the company whose lawyers wore out the government in the anti-trust trial of 1969-1981. I don't think SCO is going to be "tiring the opposition" any time soon. (And recall that in that case, IBM wasn't in a position to file patent- and copyright-infringement countersuits the way it has in the SCO case.) SCO's toast.
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 19, 2004 7:58 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] IBM -- you remember, the company whose lawyers wore out the government in the anti-trust trial of 1969-1981.Wasn't a major reason the Governement gave up at that time that the more pro-business Reagan administration came into power in 1980? Compare with how the Microsoft settlement coincided with the Bush Jr. administration 20 years later. But I must agree your example still shows IBM has the stamina to pursue legal cases as long as it takes.
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 18, 2004 16:41 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] SCO's lawyers have their own interest, which might not match the interest of SCO's stockholders. The longer the agony is prolonged, the more fees the lawyers collect. Those fees come out of SCO's remaining cash. When it's gone (either because the money runs out or the remaining stockholders wise up), the party's over.
Groklaw gets some competition (ZDNet) Posted Oct 18, 2004 16:54 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Your conclusion is incorrect, obviously. The fact that there are two opposite points of view does not mean that the truth is in the middle: you have to take a look at the evidence supporting those points of view.And then there can be no other conclusion: SCO doesn't have a case. Having said that, I usually skip the Groklaw comments nowadays, because I got tired of the many trolls and counter-trolls.
Averages and the truth Posted Oct 19, 2004 6:50 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Thanks, I was going to say something very similar. I'll go ahead and sayit anyway:
The truth does not have to live on a one-dimensional axis. If, for
The idea that the truth is just the average of every side's claims is
IMHO SCO has to be wrong. They have made so many extreme claims which are
Claiming that Groklaw is biased and that the comments are simplistic and
|
|
||||||||||||