LWN.net Logo

SCO to continue the fight?

SCO to continue the fight?

Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:50 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
In reply to: SCO to continue the fight? by sbergman27
Parent article: SCO to continue the fight?

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.


(Log in to post comments)

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?

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds