| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO to continue the fight?SCO to continue the fight?Posted Feb 16, 2008 17:41 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: SCO to continue the fight? by sbergman27 Parent article: SCO to continue the fight? Um, they did a bit more than have dinner. News reports have alleged that the funder behind the new SCO deal is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who has previously had multi-billion-dollar ventures in partnership with Bill Gates. And calling someone "psychotic" under these circumstances is, frankly, offensive.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:11 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Three hours and twelve minutes. I was timing how long it would take a PJ apologist to show up. Her evidence is flimsy, as usual. Alwaleed was interested in bringing more technology to his country. I may disagree that bringing it in in the form of Microsoft was a *wise* thing to do. But hey. He's not the only one to have made that mistake. On the other hand, going balistic, making allegations, repeatedly, on the flimsiest of evidence, and running around cackling maniacally, in general, can quite reasonably be considered "psychotic" in an informal, if not a medical, sense. I'm sorry if you find the truth offensive. PJ provides a lot of value to the community. But that value is in the form of the factual information provided by Groklaw. The insane, and yes, psychotic, conspiracy theories she spins on a regular basis only hurt her credibility... and her effectiveness. It didn't used to be that way. Groklaw used to be very much a "just the facts ma'am" sort of information source. As proprietor of Groklaw, she can, of course, run it however she wants. But at the same time, reasonable members of the community have every right to distance themselves from her when she makes a fool of herself while claiming, implicitly, to represent us.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:50 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Truth? You want to talk about truth when all you have is your own description of PJ as psychotic? How about you come up with some actual factual instances where she suggested something psychotic which didn't pan out? My recollection is that her predictions have been pretty accurate. You allege she is psychotic without any evidence to back it up. I would call that rather more anti-social than any predictions from PJ. Don't come back with a demand for evidence of her non-psychosis. That's a non-starter. You are the one alleging psychotic behavior; you need to supply the evidence.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:15 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ My recollection is that her predictions have been pretty accurate. """ Most of her unsubstantiated allegations are not likely ever to be proven one way or the other. And the rest... the substantiated ones... we all agree upon anyway. I am only critical of the unsubstantiated ones. And you should understand that I am not exactly anti-PJ. I just don't regard her as the Goddess of OSS that some people seem to, and feel that the unsubstantiated allegations which she makes weaken her own position, as well as my own OSS advocacy efforts. And presumably those of others who advocate OSS software to businesses. As I said before, she contributes much value. And I appreciate her efforts. But that value, in so far as it exists, is in the form of the factual information which she provides. All the conspiracy theories are worse than useless. They are counterproductive. If you want to turn this into a flamefest regarding whether some of her more over-the-top Waldo fantasies are true or not... you'll have to do it without me. But in that case... you are the one with whom rests the burden of proof.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:32 UTC (Sat) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Look at her reaction to the Asus Eee. According to her, the OLPC XO should have a monopoly of the subnotebook market and that manufacturers of any other competing machines are evil. Intel, apparently, should only produce chips for the XO and not any other subnotebook. Asus, the producers of the Eee, are apparently killing off the XO by producing a more powerful machine in a similar form-factor. Side-by-side comparisons of the XO and Eee should not only be banned, but the XO should always be chosen by default - buyers shouldn't be allowed to choose alternatives. This in spite of the fact that the XO is a poorly-specified machine for most uses and that the OLPC organisation is so poorly run that they don't know who's bought what and when they're going to receive them. PJ has no understanding of the free market, only of control. For someone who preaches freedom, she doesn't half play "favorites" when it comes to who can do what... The XO/Eee issue is only one of the farces she's carried out over the past year or two. The bottom line is that she *doesn't* represent the community, even though she claims to. N.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:55 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] The Eee PC is a top notch machine, BTW. I bought one about a week ago. And it is everything I had hoped for and more. XO is going to have to compete... rather than living on the kindness of strangers. Some people have problems dealing with that concept.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:07 UTC (Sat) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] I've had mine for a little over a month, and the only fault I can find is that you really do need to upgrade the RAM to 1GB, and that the machine runs quite hot (although I'm told not as hot as laptops). I love the machine, and yet if PJ had her way, I'd be denied the option of buying one. PJ's lost sight of the following: 1) It doesn't matter a damn what laptops children get so long as they get laptops. 2) It doesn't matter a damn what is installed on the laptops so long as the children can do what they want to do. 3) Linux subnotebooks have entered the market at such a low price that kids around the world (first, third, whatever) will get their hands on one. This is a very exciting time for both Linux fans and tech geeks, and here's PJ telling the world that only one company should be allowed to do all this. She has lost sight of what freedom is all about. N.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:21 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Mine has been exceedingly zippy, running Ubuntu Gutsy, on just 512MB. It doesn't even go into swap. (/proc/sys/vm/swappiness=0) That's with an OO.o spreadsheet, wordprocecessing document, Epiphany browser session, and Evolution email session up. It is still only using about 160MB. I know what you mean, though. I feel so strongly about Linux that I sometimes have to stop myself before I, as a consultant and systems admin, restrict someone else's freedom in the name of Linux. It's an easy pit to fall into. And it can be done with the very best of intentions.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 13:42 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] You missed the biggest point: the XO is explicitly designed, hardware and software, for use by *children*. You'd think the 'little machine for adults' would be an obvious hole, but, nope, not to PJ. (I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 13:55 UTC (Sun) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] True, although I'm not ruling out the OLPC organisation producing a more mature-looking version of the XO in future. I await the inevitable AMD-powered subnotebook which will compete with the Eee and XO. Whose chips will PJ use then?
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:02 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Hmm.Childish name-calling and fantasy depictions of people you disagree with ("psychotic", "cackling maniacally?")? Check. Ignoring when gross distortions in your arguments are pointed out ("some guy from SNCP had dinner with Bill Gates one time")? Check. Straw-man arguments ("Alwaleed was interested in bringing more technology to his country" has nothing to do with a personal multibillion-dollar hotel partnership with Gates)? Check. I lament for the level of discourse on LWN.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:12 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Before we continue, are you Steven J Vauhn-Nichols? I'd kind of like to know if I'm conversing with someone whose own journalistic reputation rides on PJ not being a kook, or someone without such a conflict of interest.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:32 UTC (Sat) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] Ad hominem: check.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:34 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] A legitimate question. Errr... check. :-)
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 22, 2008 2:05 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] PJ fanboy. check.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:32 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] If you *are* Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a thousand pardons for mangling your name so in the above post. :-) I accidentally mangled Pamela's name in a correspondence with her, and she concluded that I was obviously an astroturfer hired by SCO or Microsoft, and refused to talk to me. Seriously. -Steve Bergman
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:38 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] No, I am not him. Not that it should matter who I am in a rational discussion.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:13 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] OK. Thanks for that. SJVN, for whom I have a lot of respect, has, oddly, put himself out on a limb regarding PJ lately. But what, exactly, are we debating here? PJ makes some unsubstantiated claims, with just enough completely circumstantial evidence to avoid being laughed out of the room, and *some* in the OSS community are all too ready to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Do we attain victory by becoming as our opponents? NigelK has already pointed out how quickly PJ is willing to throw the concept of freedom out the window, based upon what is essentially tunnel-vision. I say again, and I think this is at least the third time in this thread, that PJ provides much value by reporting facts as only she can. She is not evil. She is, sometimes, overenthusiastic. And sometimes overconfident regarding how far into speculation her credibility among other people will allow her, safely, to go. Beyond that, and she is doing more harm than good. That's about as delicately as I can express my opinion of her condition. And I hope you do not find it too offensive. Sorry if you disagree. But note that I have refrained from calling you a troll in this thread. Or in any other, for that matter.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:37 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I have argued with Mr Bergman before, but I have to agree with him here. PJ does excellent research, explains things great for us non-lawyers, is an excellent writer and has a gift for attracting non-techies to free software. But sometimes she is overenthusiastic and too trigger-happy.His comments may be a bit harsh, but I think your troll-o-meter is a bit too sensitive. What I know is that I would like to see hard evidence this time before Microsoft takes the blame, something along the lines of the Halloween memos. And I don't doubt that Microsoft might be involved, but if we ask for fairness in others we should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:00 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] She didn't blame Microsoft per se, she merely pointed out that the present funder has had a personal multibillion-dollar business relationship with Bill Gates in the past, made a joke about "Waldo," and left the conclusion about the relevance of this relationship to the reader. I don't object to people disagreeing with her about whether this relationship is relevant, but I do object to putting words in someone's mouth, distorting their evidence, and unconscionable namecalling. You're right that I don't think he is a classic "troll" in the sense of someone who tries to provoke a flamewar for fun. But his behavior was trollish and unacceptable in dragging down the level of discussion to incendiary straw men and ad hominem invective. Readers looking for that sort of thing go to Slashdot, not LWN, and my implication was that it was pointless to argue with him as long as the discussion continued at that level.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:41 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ She didn't blame Microsoft per se, """ She continued her silly "Where's Waldo" game. That was the point of that paragraph in her article. "Proving" (in the Groklaw sense) the Microsoft involvement. Groklaw is all about presenting evidence. But none is actually required to convict anyone there. """ You're right that I don't think he is a classic "troll" in the sense of someone who tries to provoke a flamewar for fun. """ Well, you got that right. I've been advocating Unix since 1988, and Linux since 1996. I'm someone who is basically on your side, but who thinks that one of the well meaning members of our community, whom I guess happens to be one of your personal heroes, goes out of bounds and hurts the team rather frequently.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 1:22 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] She reported a factual multi-billion-dollar relationship between the new funder and a major player in the SCO/Linux saga; why is this not a reasonable thing to report? She didn't claim to have "proved" anything.Speculation about my "personal heroes" is yet another attempt to sidetrack this discussion in to ad hominem considerations. Even if she were someone whose opinions were antithetical to mine, I would find gross distortions of her arguments in order to discredit them to be obnoxious. I was raised to believe that you should characterize even an opponent's position fairly before you attempt to refute it.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 2:57 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ Speculation about my "personal heroes" is yet another attempt """ Uh.. right. It's not that I really care that much about who your personal heroes might be. If you wish to carry on believing that PJ presents the facts, and only the facts, without interjecting any sort of silly and obvious biases which destroy what could otherwise be be a sterling record of credibility, well... I guess that's your business. But I will point out that you are distancing yourself from her Waldo game almost as much as I am, claiming that she is just reporting the news like Walter Cronkite. But to me, her style has about as much in common with Walter Kronkite's as... oops, if I said that we'd end up on a tangient about ad hominems... even though it's quite true and relevant. At any rate, I don't beieve in flame wars. I state my case, and then elaborate and repeat a few times if it seems warranted. Any more than that and it is just rude to the other readers.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 4:20 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] There you go again, playing rhetorical games, putting thoughts into my head and arguing against them.Certainly, PJ interjects editorial commentary in many of her articles, and I've never claimed otherwise; she's entitled to her opinions, and one can judge them on a case-by-case basis. But right now, we're talking about this specific issue of her reporting on the investor's relationship to Bill Gates. And in this case, her entire allusion to her running "Waldo" joke, the joke that you've been going on and on about as a "psychotic" "conspiracy theory" that discredits our entire community, is three words ("So, there's Waldo."); horrors, what a baseless accusation! Otherwise, she merely gave a link to and a quote from an article on the business relationship in question (a relationship you grossly misstated, which was my reason for responding to your post in the first place). It may be that you don't believe in flamewars, but as long as when you "state your case" it is based on hyperbole, gross distortion, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and evaporates completely when one compares your description of reality to the actual words in the original source, as long as you never admit to your fallacies when they are pointed out, you're going to generate flamewars.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 11:16 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If I may inject something... I don't think Steve Bergman's case relies on distortion; it seems just a mocking understatement. Groklaw actually said:Gates and Alwaleed have collaborated for at least two years. After attending a dinner at Gates's home in Bellevue, Washington, in early 2004, Alwaleed agreed to explore ways to assist Microsoft's expansion in Saudi Arabia.Fact is, it doesn't really matter if the magical prince only had lunch with Bill Gates or was a close personal friend. You would not expect a SCO founder to be a Red Hat stockholder; the fact that this guy was a business associate of Mr Gates would not surprise anyone. Big money talks a lot between itself. If we are going to mistrust everyone who does business with Microsoft then I think the entire computer industry is tainted. Ditto with Gates.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 19:15 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Thank you, man_ls, for the accurate clarification. In the long run... credibility is more valuable than the facts. PJ does a great job of presenting the facts. But she either does not realize how badly she compromises her own credibility (which would not be surprising considering the like-minded crowd which surrounds her on her site) or does not think that it matters. Or perhaps she is overconfident enough to think that we do not need to maintain credibility as a precious resource. I, personally, have found that being surrounded by a like-minded community is, in the long run, a liability. While I am a fervent advocate of Unix, Linux, and OSS, I tend to shun Linux-only news sites, these days, in favor of sites which cater to a very multi-platform oriented community. I consider LWN to be an exception due to the notably high quality of original material here. But even so, this thread has been an effective reminder of why I don't hang out with the choir as much as I used to.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 0:34 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Did you follow the link? Alwaleed didn't just have dinner at Gates' house and discuss using Microsoft software. He personally, along with Bill Gates and one other guy, pooled 4 billion dollars to buy a hotel chain. He's not just a Microsoft customer and one-time Gates dinner guest, he's a multi-billion-dollar personal business partner.Whether you think this is relevant to Alwaleed funding SCO is a matter reasonable people can disagree about. But at least get your facts straight; this is like the fourth or fifth time in this thread that I've had to point out the above fact.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 0:58 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ this is like the fourth or fifth time in this thread that I've had to point out the above """ Perhaps that is a good indication that "the above" is unconvincing, and that declaring "There's Waldo" based upon "the above" is unwise and compromises one's credibility. And if it is unconvincing on a site as biased against SCO and Microsoft as we are here... how convincing do you think it would be to more objective observers? Where's Waldo is a children's game, and should remain so. It's not a license for adults to jump to wild conclusions without reasonable evidence.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 16:35 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] It's not a question of whether you're convinced of anything, it's a question of whether you can describe the facts of the situation without gross distortion. Nor, apparently, are you able to acknowledge any correction that disagrees with your preconceived opinion.Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:30 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else. """ I consider that the evidence which you and PJ wave around, making declarations that "There's Waldo" is so far from conclusive as to qualify as comical. Your "facts" simply have a very limited relevance. I absolutely despise Microsoft. I want to see them gone. But please... come back with some real, relevant, conclusive facts. And then I will be more than willing to use them in my own advocacy of FOSS.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:53 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Well, there's your problem. You confuse facts with opinion. "There's Waldo" has never been thought a fact by anyone, except apparently you. No wonder you have so much trouble.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:55 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] You are, of course, free to opine that the evidence is inconclusive, or (more to the point) dispute the relevance of the funder's relationship with Gates. But that doesn't give you license to misrepresent what the evidence was.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 21:17 UTC (Mon) by jake (editor, #205) [Link] Ok, this looks like it has gone about as far as it needs to, doesn't it? I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's mind at this point and the thread is becoming annoying to some. jake
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 20, 2008 2:55 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Nor does it give him the right to call her psychotic. Psychotic is skinning your cat, putting your PJ's on it and putting it in your bed. Psychotic is also showing up at your home in the middle of the night with five or six knives, a shovel, a bag of lime and a bunch of trash bags. Making allusions to an alleged scheme between multi-billionaires is simply biased journalism, or more commonly, blogging. Personally I was always under the impression Groklaw was a blog, although there is some stupendous information there it's always been colored by PJ's feelings. Right or wrong that's just the way she runs her site, personally I don't mind. But calling her Psychotic for it is way over the line. Personally I think the OP owes her an apology for such a blatant public libel. psy·chot·ic [sahy-kot-ik] adjective 1. characterized by or afflicted with psychosis. psy·cho·sis [sahy-koh-sis] 1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality. 2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 20:20 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ There you go again, playing rhetorical games, putting thoughts into my head """ I really and truly think that you are taking this thread too personally.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 21:25 UTC (Sun) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] No, I really just think he's tired of you deciding what people think for them, and then attack it.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:40 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] As there is plausible evidence that MS has been involved in funding SCO in the past, it is a reasonable question for PJ to pose as to whether they are involved this time. And she pointed out that, indeed, the present funder has had multibillion-dollar business partnerships with Gates in the past. What conclusion to draw from this she left to the reader; reasonable people can disagree about the relevance of the funder's financial and personal relationship with Gates. If you had simply disagreed with her like a reasonable person, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you started by grossly distorting her evidence about the connection with Gates and calling her "psychotic," and things went downhill from there. That made your post(s) trollish. Thank you for switching to a more reasonable tone in your last post. (As for the Asus PC vs. XO, I don't think your or Nigel's characterization of her opinions on the subject are entirely accurate, but I have no interest in fighting over an offtopic thread. Nor do I always agree with PJ's judgements, but I don't think this makes her "psychotic.") PS. Speaking of unsubstantiated claims, "Steven" is the 18th most common first name in the US, and two surnames beginning with "J" are in the top five. It's sometimes annoying to have a common name.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:10 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Tell me about it. My first name is Steven, too. I absolutely agree about there being a lot of cirumstantial evidence regarding MS participation in the SCO investments. The Baystar thing even had some evidence which was not of the circumstantial variety. But her "Where's Waldo" game is just childish. And if you think being branded with a common name is a pain... believe me, being an enthusiastic, and long time member of a community "represented" by the likes of PJ and Eric Raymond is far worse. (I've been advocating Unix since 1988, and Linux since 1996.) PJ needs to wait until she has the facts before making accusations. That woman has done so much *good*! Why can't she be happy and stop there? Perhaps I should cut her some slack. It is reasonable to think that The SCO Group might have been behind that nasty expose' that Maureen O'Gara did back in early 2005. And I can't help but wonder how I would feel about a corrupt company which I was trying to expose, which then tried, rather unsuccessfully, to expose me back. But it does not change the fact that PJ, while providing a valuable service which helps the community, regularly goes off the edge and hurts it.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:37 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] PJ needs to wait until she has the facts before making accusations. What accusation did she make? Did she say that Gates was the actual source of the money? No. Did she say that Gates had suggested the funding? No. She simply reported a fact, that the new funder had a multibillion-dollar one-on-one business relationship with Bill Gates, and left the conclusion to the reader. Obviously, she thinks the relationship is potentially relevant; others may disagree, but nothing justifies your hyperbole. If you go back and read your description of what she said and what her evidence was, and compare it to your characterizations thereof, I would have hoped that it would inspire some admission that you were wrong in the way you attacked her (and dragged down the level of discussion).
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:58 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ What accusation did she make? Did she say that Gates was the actual source of the money? No. """ And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about. If we are going to try to fight the battle on that front... we are going to need to do a lot better than that. And honestly, how satisfying would it be to win that way, in any case? Better to provide superior functionality and value. MS used to define us as a cancer. But now they talk about value. People, in the final analysis, don't really care about what is right or wrong. They care about what they can get and how much, or little, it will cost them. Microsoft figured that out, and the sooner we do, the better. "Where's Waldo" is irrelevant, ineffectual, and counterproductive.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 1:07 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about. There you go again, attacking a straw (wo)man. Along with your ad hominem attacks, this is a time-honored way to score points in debates, but is not so effective at generating truly informative discussion (for those of us who are interested in that). PJ pointed out that the new funder of SCO is a personal business partner of Bill Gates. It's certainly a point of interest to anyone following the SCO saga, if nothing else, and is potentially relevant to understanding the situation and hence reasonable to report. No one has said or implied that the fact of this relationship is "enough to achieve victory," or anything even close to that. As for attacking what people supposedly "think" (rather than what they say), I shouldn't have to point out how contrived that is.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 10:09 UTC (Mon) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] "And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about." Most of us base our predictions based on history and past experiences. The only thing Microsoft worries about is Linux surviving and possibly forcing more standards through. The minute they loose their grip on the market both Microsoft will be in for a real ride when people can start producing things that compete with them. You know the market is broken when its hard to compete even if you give your product away for free. "If we are going to try to fight the battle on that front... we are going to need to do a lot better than that." The "battle" is utterly one-sided and consists to 100% of Microsoft trying to keep Linux away from the market by any means possible. The community is not in any way in battle with anyone, just defending itself. "And honestly, how satisfying would it be to win that way, in any case?" Win what? There is no war, just MS trying to make that pesky Linux go away. "Better to provide superior functionality and value. MS used to define us as a cancer. But now they talk about value. People, in the final analysis, don't really care about what is right or wrong. They care about what they can get and how much, or little, it will cost them." Superior functionality and value means nothing and vendor lockin everything. Thats why most of the effort lies in getting open standards more used. Something that would benefit the whole market and not just Linux. Linux could be five hundred times better and still not making it in some places where all the bets are placed in locked in technology. "Microsoft figured that out, and the sooner we do, the better." There is nothing from Microsoft that Linux needs. Why would one want to mimic them instead of just buying their products if that is what you want? ""Where's Waldo" is irrelevant, ineffectual, and counterproductive." Its a game albeit one with a serious undertone. If someone manages to identify a smoking gun it would seriously put a real stop to Microsofts work on getting linux go away by various proxies who do the dirty work. This is not about the Linux community trying to kill MS by courts, its about stopping Microsoft from gaming the system in their effort of keeping the free market anything but free.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 15:49 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You know the market is broken when its hard to compete even if you give your product away for free.Stores sell bottled water, even when the tap is there (almost) for free. Would you say the market for water is broken? It would be nice if we stopped lamenting ourselves and started thinking about why Windows is keeping its own against free alternatives. IMHO all we have to do is to convince people that Linux is not only for geeks. The rest will come on its own (as long as Linux continues to get better all the time).
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 18:49 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ It would be nice if we stopped lamenting ourselves and started thinking about why Windows is keeping its own against free alternatives. """ It would be more than nice. It would be *constructive*. Spreading innuendo regarding Microsoft does not improve our credibility. It is an indicator that we do not have confidence in our own product. Monopolies which are not natural monopolies have a natural life-cycle. Oh, the time scales can be excruciatingly glacial in nature. But nature takes its course, eventually. Like any corporation, they feel a need to expand their revenues. And yet they already have most of the market. So they have no choice but to try to extract more money from their existing client base. Microsoft will bring its own downfall upon itself. IMO, we worry way too much about hastening that event. Might as well push on a glacier. What we want to be is the greenery which strings up and takes over once the glacier has retreated. We would do best to improve ourselves, rather than wasting effort trying to push the glacier. Not the best analogy, perhaps. But I think it might help get my point across. We need to be worrying about our own business, not someone else's. And the rest will follow. Unless we want to go through all of this only to have Microsoft replaced by another proprietary, closed source player.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 21, 2008 5:10 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > Three hours and twelve minutes. I was timing how long it would take a PJ apologist to show up. It's shit like this that makes me really miss an "ignore fuckwit" option in LWN.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 18:07 UTC (Sun) by lokpest (guest, #45764) [Link] "Um, they did a bit more than have dinner." Uhm, what happens in the bedroom is their business! ;-)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 18, 2008 3:06 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Melinda might disagree on that count. ;-)
|
|
||||||||||||