| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaintA complaint about the look at the SCO complaintPosted Mar 8, 2003 14:49 UTC (Sat) by jonth (subscriber, #4008)In reply to: A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint by torsten Parent article: A look at the SCO complaint Sorry, I am not being self centred. Did I say I was unhappy about paying for the content? No. I said that I was unhappy that it was sent out to all the people who don't support LWN. I just feel that LWN short-changed itself. This was a really interesting article, just the sort of high quality comment I have come to expect from the LWN front page. However, it wasn't earth-shatteringly important that everybody read it right now, and as such, should have been restricted to those who pay for LWN. If they had, then perhaps those people who don't pay would have read it in a week's time and thought, "hey, that would be worth the money" and subscribed to LWN. cheers, Jonth
(Log in to post comments)
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 10, 2003 22:55 UTC (Mon) by Odinson (guest, #1402) [Link] You have been looking at the unfounded Linux bashing on the Microsoft stock boards then.The world does need this kind of anaylsis to not dismiss Linux at a cheap IP rip off scheme, yesterday. There is already malcontent among the Linux .com GPL ignorant/unfortunate.
|
|
||||||||||||