| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truthThomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truthPosted Aug 20, 2010 3:47 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048)In reply to: Tobacco kills by rebentisch Parent article: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) I hold Thomas Vinje's skills in the highest regard -- we fought for different outcomes of the Oracle/Sun case but that doesn't prevent me from respecting his abilities. However, the point you're trying to make is that he always speaks the truth. What evidence did he present for what he said? Nada. Just a conspiracy theory. Monty and I had announced our working relationship and everyone knows that Monty made a lot of money when he sold MySQL and that he cared a lot about his brainchild, so I can't see how he would have needed anyone else's money to defend the cause. But is Thomas known to have IBM, indirectly through ECIS, as a client? That is a proven fact and an obvious motivation for him to say this kind of thing. What's really ridiculous is to say that he "usually restrains himself". He's a fighting machine. On both occasions on which I've seen him in person, he was by far and away the most aggressive person in the room. The latter of the two events was the OpenForum Europe Summit in June. All other speakers just explained their companies' perspective on open standards or were academics who tried to present things in their way. Thomas was the only one to dismiss the European Commission's current draft European Interoperability Framework as completely insufficient. The others tried to be diplomatic. He wasn't, and he admitted right at the start of this speech that he wasn't going to be. So much for restraint. The idea that when he says something, the European Commission "does believe the same", is completely crazy. They know he's a lawyer who works for clients and defends their interests. They've disagreed with him often enough, and they've doubted often enough the things he says. You won't find any lawyer in the world whom a regulator (or a court) would trust unconditionally even if he doesn't present the slightest evidence. Then another thing: what petition do you mean? Monty's petition related to MySQL? No one ever argued that the number of signatures should decide the case. Oracle had presented a couple hundred customer letters. If that was part of the case file (meaning of the overall collection of materials that were, or could potentially be, seen as evidence), then there was nothing wrong with Monty's petition either. In particular, Monty's petition form gave people the chance to enter their own individual comments that were meant to provide helpful information about the market. why do you demonize corporations in public I don't demonize anyone. Of course I had good reasons to believe that Oracle wanted to acquire MySQL only to remove a key competitive (and increasingly important) force from the market. That's not demonization. If you read what I wrote so far about Oracle vs. Google, you can see that I also pointed out areas in which I'm uncomfortable with Google's strategy. So my views are balanced, how about yours? It's just normal that major competition cases will also result in a public debate, especially if they have important economic ramifications. Oracle did several times more PR related to that merger case than Monty and I did. IBM is now doing a lot of PR about the mainframe case. That's just part of what happens. It doesn't change my belief that all those cases should be decided on the merits only. the (staged) TH case Come on, what's this? What is "staged" about it? Did IBM write those letters at Microsoft's behest? Did anyone forge those letters? Even IBM never claimed any of that. They tried to downplay the significance but the letters speak for themselves. Also, do you think an open source project that started back in 1999 is simply a "staged" thing? It's a very well-respected project, and in 2002 it was even mentioned in an IBM RedBook. By calling this kind of thing "staged" you show that you have a pro-IBM bias, or a bias against me (which you've had for years as I know), or both. You won't convince reasonable people with absurd claims. If it were "staged", the European Commission wouldn't be formally investigating the case now on the basis of (among other things) TurboHercules's complaint. The EC knows how to tell staged matters from real issues. Unlike you.
(Log in to post comments)
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truth Posted Aug 20, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link]
All I said is that Vinje gets you into a Tobacco problem at the European Commission. That's your issue, not mine.
You don't fight in his weight class in the field of competition policy. You do not have a slice of his credibility and experience. When Vinje claims it then regard it as widely recognized "truth" on the corridors of Brussels.
As of the staged TH case you depict it differently, that is fine for me. I am not arguing about your commercial motivations because that's pointless as your remarks about Vinje. All observers can see TH is staged which is also fine, because these cases are usually staged. No one seriously expects a tiny SME startup from France, a non-praticing entity, to play in this league on its own and drive a multi-annual competition case.
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truth Posted Aug 20, 2010 8:20 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link]
You're now getting off-topic by talking about "credibility". Sure, Thomas is a lawyer, I am not. Then I've got actual industry expertise, a quarter century of it. Don't compare apples to bananas. Or should we now talk about your "credibility and experience" in EU affairs as compared to mine? I move that we stay on topic and talk about the actual issues.
On the actual issues, it would be interesting to hear from you how IBM's letters and an 11-year-old open source project can be "staged". You just make the claim without substantiating it in any way.
All you say is that they don't have the resources to do it. The European Commission does not charge any fees whatsoever for lodging a complaint, nor for anything that happens thereafter. Zero fees. Sophocles accurately said 2,500 years ago that "in a just cause, the weak overcome the strong."
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truth Posted Aug 20, 2010 9:13 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] You are free to dress your claims about reality as you like. Don't expect anyone to buy into them.On the actual issues, it would be interesting to hear from you how IBM's letters and an 11-year-old open source project can be "staged". You just make the claim without substantiating it in any way.You would be taken more serious when your conversation was less sloppy: I didn't make any of these claims. Would you acknowledge that? Merci.
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truth Posted Aug 20, 2010 9:19 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] You are free to dress your claims about reality as you like. Don't expect anyone to buy into them. If I'm the only one viewing things like that, how do you explain the European Commission's thoroughly-considered decision to launch formal investigations? You would be taken more serious when your conversation was less sloppy: I didn't make any of these claims. Would you acknowledge that? Merci. If anything was "sloppy", it was your totally unsubstantiated assertion that the TurboHercules case is "staged". You were free to explain which part of the case is "staged". It's not my fault you didn't seize the opportunity before, but could you shed some light on that now? I just pointed out that the competition issue at the heart of the case is real, the players are real, IBM's letters are real. I furthermore pointed out that there are no fees on the European Commission's part and to go from Paris to Brussels on the Thalys train takes less than two hours and then you can meet the Commission and talk. They will only grant you a meeting if there's a serious issue. In this case, there is. Serious enough to have given rise to formal investigations.
Sloppyness smells also tobacco Posted Aug 20, 2010 10:00 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] how IBM's letters...can be "staged"I didn't claim IBM's letters to be staged. ...and an 11-year-old open source project can be "staged"I didn't claim the 11-year-old open source project Hercules to be staged. In fact whether both of them were staged is unrelated to my claim.
Sloppyness smells also tobacco Posted Aug 20, 2010 10:25 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] OK, so by now you say you don't claim IBM's letters are staged; you don't claim the 11-year-old Hercules open source project is staged; you confirmed elsewhere in this discussion with "I see" that TurboHercules is a real company with real offerings, as evidenced by the corporate website (to make it even easier, this link leads directly to the offerings). So what is your claim of "staging" then about, other than a cheap attempt to muddy the water with false claims? You never clarify. You just complain that, basically, your nonsensical claim is hard for reasonable people to make sense of. Come clean and tell us what's "staged". Or am I asking too much?
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 12:32 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link]
A common perception is that TH is a company recently set up for the competition complaint as its business model. I share this view. You fail to convince me of your alternate teaching.
Known fact also support the common perception as well my private insights in a larger theatre of conflict.
* When was the TH set up?
For instance opponents didn't believe that Opera launched the browser complaint on its own. I think they did, and it was a legally weak complaint. Hakon presented it at the OFE conference in Geneva that happened to coincide with the Open XML BRM in the same building. There is no reason for a small player (actually Opera is no SME anymore) to deny to have more powerful allies, except that suspected allies don't like the rumours because they get into trouble.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:11 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] A common perception is that TH is a company recently set up for the competition complaint as its business model. I share this view. You fail to convince me of your alternate teaching. It's really hard to argue with someone who behaves so unresaonably in a discussion. Just the part I quoted contains again a number of unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions, untrue also. Why a "common" perception? Apparently "common" doesn't include the European Commission, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and so many other media? You say me I fail to convince you of something. In the past when I failed to convince you of something related to software patents, it was actually better for the cause that I didn't care. You just ask a bunch of question. I'll answer them, but I challenge you to substantiate your claims. You called the TH case a "staged" drama, and after repeated requests on my end you haven't given any explanation as to why. On the contrary, whatever I said concerning the details of the case and the players, you basically had to acknowledge and then disclaim that you meant any of that to be "staged". Still you haven't said what is staged in any reasonably specific way. I'll answer these questions, but I refuse to play a game of having to bring up more and more facts that convince reasonable people only to deal with a, say, person who simply doesn't want to be convinced no matter what I say. I do this here not for you but for the readers of LWN anyway. * When was the TH set up? I don't know the exact date, but I found this on their 'About' page: * When and for what reasons was H published as open source It was open source from the start in 1999. (under the worst imaginable OSI approved license) You say that from today's perspective but they made the choice a long time ago. It's not only OSI-approved but also FSF-approved by the way. Proliferation of licenses is a general FOSS problem, can't blame such an old project for its tradition. * Did TH seriously expect to get an operating system license? There are two answers, and both of them I had already pointed you to, so your asking reaffirms my impression you don't want to understand. 1. I had given you the link to TH's offerings. That very page explains at the bottom that the operating system license is available, but currently limited to the use case of disaster recovery. Disaster recovery/business continuity is a pretty significant business model in IT by now. z/OS can be used for that purpose in accordance with the excerpt from the z/OS EULA as quoted on that page. TH indeed already conducts its business on the basis of being limited to disaster recover. There's a video available on that page showing a reference customer. 2. Apart from that, there's nothing unreasonable about the request for a license to z/OS in emulation. The European Commmission stated in its recent announcement that "IBM is alleged to have engaged in illegal tying of its mainframe hardware products to its dominant mainframe operating system." The Commission looked into these complaints for a long time and then decided to launch these antitrust probes. So reasonable people can indeed believe that it's fair and reasonable to ask IBM for a z/OS license on non-IBM hardware. * Why did I.B.M. tolerate H for so long? That's a question to put to IBM. I don't know the thinking of IBM executives. From the outside I can only try to come up with plausible explanations. When we talk about mainframes, we talk about highly mission-critical purposes and customers in that area need a company to turn to for professional support and similar services. So having TurboHercules versus just having Hercules alone makes a positive difference, just like Linux would never have become as successful in enterprise use at it has without companies providing specialized support. The other factor I would imagine is the evolution of performance. If you look at the total number of MIPS you can build into an Intel-based system now and compare it to a mainframe, the gap has never been narrower. Thus the time has come for Hercules to become an interesting choice for a significant number of mainframe purposes. The software is mature and the hardware became powerful enough. Great combination. * Who is behind OpenMainframe? If you mean the openmainframe.rog website, you have to ask them. I'm not involved with it. They link to mainframe-related articles from all over the web. I sometimes use that site as a starting point for my own research. Occasionally they link to my blog, like so many others do. The idea of opening up the mainframe market is a good one if you consider the vast size of the market and the way IBM milks its customers, exploiting their $5 trillion lock-in. * Furthermore, why are you so passionate to refute it? Why the drama? I'm always passionate about refuting things if I believe I have acquired enough knowledge to do so and if it relates to what I do. Since my blog discussed the TurboHercules matter on multiple occasions, I care and I have done a fair amount of research. There's no drama. It's all about the truth that must come out now during the antitrust investigation. Why campaign against OFE? I don't "campaign" against OFE because they're OFE. I call them out on hypocrisy, also in connection with the contradiction between Oracle/Sun's Java Community Process and OFE's demands for open standards. OFE misses the point by talking only about one particular definition of "open standards" when the real issue facing the IT sector is that some de facto standards have emerged because of pervasive technologies and the question is what to do about them. The European Commission, in particular its vice-president Neelie Kroes, is well aware of that and sets the right priority with this initiative about de facto standards, about which OFE is conspicuously silent. I would view OFE much more favorably if they truly advocated openness all the way. I would, however, always be skeptical of OFE's chief executive because he lobbied for softwaer patents in the name of the open source community. Why is TH's complaint framed as an OSS issue? When TH's antitrust complaint was lodged, I didn't even comment on it. When I obtained IBM's threat letter (at a time when some others in the community did, such as Eric Raymond), I saw the patents-against-FOSS angle there. Now concerning the antitrust case, it certainly is a David vs. Goliath, free software start-up vs. proprietary monopolist, type of battle. TH is a FOSS startup, started by the founder of the FOSS project in question. IBM, as far as the mainframe legacy business is concerned, is at least as closed as Apple and much more closed than Microsoft. There is no reason for a small player (actually Opera is no SME anymore) to deny to have more powerful allies, except that suspected allies don't like the rumours because they get into trouble. I agree that if it helps to make the truth come out, there's nothing wrong with little guys getting help from bigger one with an interest in the same matter. I guess that generally there's now a lot of anticipation in the IT industry among IBM's various competitors (thinking of hardware as well as software companies) in capturing a part of a huge market(twice as big as the Linux-based software market), and we'll see if any alliances and/or investments result from that. The antitrust probes were launched just before the primary vacation month of the year, so it's not surprising that nothing hasn't happened yet. We'll see.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 15:04 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] When was the TH set up? I don't know the exact date, but I found this on their 'About' page: Roger Bowler, Co-founder Roger created the Hercules mainframe emulator in 1999. He lives in Paris, France where he works as a senior mainframe developer and z systems operator. He serves as the companys technical visionary and its liaison with the Hercules open source project.You see what I mean, you try to mix H and TH up. Hercules is software from 1999. TurboHercules is a French company. I tried to look up TurboHercules.com in archive.org, no entry. You hardly find entries about Turbohercules before 2010. When you look carefully you find this: http://www.linkedin.com/companies/turbohercules Founded in 2009. The site also claims a link of the company to http://www.syspertec.com/ - Company TH is registered and requests an operating system license from I.B.M., then files an antitrust complaint against big blue.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:51 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] you try to mix H and TH up. Hercules is software from 1999. TurboHercules is a French company. It's not me conflating the issues, it's a problem with others trying to artifically separate them. TurboHercules, an undertaking according to EU law, lodged the complaint. But what IBM does affects the Hercules open source project just to the same extent. TurboHercules's software is 100% the Hercules open source project. IBM doesn't allow the execution of z/OS on Hercules regardless of whether TurboHercules is involved or not. IBM claimed patent infringement related to the emulator, and the emulator is the open source project and nothing else. I tried to look up TurboHercules.com in archive.org, no entry. You hardly find entries about Turbohercules before 2010. I firstly saw the webiste last year. Also, their first letter went to IBM in July 2009. But the antitrust complaint was filed in March 2010. So we talk about them having tried for eight months to resolve this amicably with IBM. Quite a lot of patience. You made a very strong claim: you said and never retracted that it's a "staged" drama. But you don't back up a strong claim with strong facts. All you talk about is when they were founded -- undoubtedly in 2009 at the latest given they wrote their first letter to IBM on company stationery in July 2009. The history of the open source project -- since IBM doesn't treat that one any better than it treats the TH company and since such companies are essential parts of the FOSS ecosystem (and fully respected unter free software and open source rules) -- is definitely important. Monty started MySQL's development in the 1980s, first released it publicly in the mid 1990's, and founded MySQL AB finally in 2001. So there's nothing unusual about the TH company being founded -- by its Monty equivalent -- many years after the FOSS project. In TH's case, it makes particular sense because of something I explained before: ever more powerful Intel-based hardware has meanwhile enabled the system to master pretty significant workloads.
Common sense Posted Sep 3, 2010 0:07 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Does nobody know how to use whois anymore?
Creation Date: 18-Feb-2009
It is unlikely that the company existed much before that, given that they are in a field where a website is de rigeur.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:14 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
The drama *I* don't get is why there seem to be so many people who are so anti-TurboHercules/anti-FlorianMueller...AFAICT he's just defending himself against unsubstatiated innuendos and falsehoods.
Facts as I understand them, not having heard of this situation until this thread:
*1* Hercules has been around for at least 10 years, 9 years under the Q public license (an open source license)
Letters: http://openmainframe.org/legal/2010-turbohercules-europea...
> * Did TH seriously expect to get an operating system license?
Did they expect to get a positive response to the first letter? I have no idea, but I'd guess probably not. I suspect they probably figured all along they'd have to coerce IBM through antitrust regulations to license the OS for use on other hardware. But of course they had to ask first...
But what's wrong with that? Allowing companies like TurboHercules to exist is exactly what the antitrust regulations are *for*! And that doesn't make the antitrust complaint a "business model" -- it's just a prerequisite to doing business. The business model is quite clear: selling mainframe emulation solutions based on Hercules.
> * Why did I.B.M. tolerate H for so long?
Well, this seems obvious now: if anybody tried to use Hercules to actually compete with IBM's offerings, they would simply threaten those people with a patent lawsuit and software license violations for IBM's OS. So there was basically no harm to IBM in letting Hercules, the open source project, exist, so long as nobody showed any signs of using it to compete with IBM's mainframe hardware business.
Now that someone is, IBM brought out the patent threats...
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:28 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] Thank you for your support. You make some good points there and I just answered those questions in detail and posted my detailed reply about a minute before you posted yours. The drama *I* don't get is why there seem to be so many people who are so anti-TurboHercules/anti-FlorianMueller...AFAICT he's just defending himself against unsubstatiated innuendos and falsehoods. Thanks for this support in particular. If you look at who writes those things, it comes down to a very few user names: Wol, vonbrand, rebentisch. Wol has made himself ridiculous by claiming a patent infringement isn't a patent violation, and he's a big-time Groklaw user. I also saw a "vonbrand" profile up on Groklaw but the name isn't familiar. There are also many reasonable people on Groklaw. However, that "PJ" (who has never spoken up at an industry conference or anything like that, so she must have something to hide) has misled her fanboys. More and more reasonable Groklaw people realize PJ sometimes simply lies. Her false but now definitely refuted claim that I wanted to un-GPL MySQL is a perfect example of a lie, and she furthermore lied about me in connection with the Munich Linux migration (she claimed that I lied about it, although I only told the truth, and blamed things on me I was never responsible for). And I could give examples of where she even misstates one of the most basic aspects of the GPL. "rebentisch" is an activist with the FFII. The FFII started the resistance against software patents in Europe, but that wasn't his achievement. He always opposed what I did, but ultimately my strategic impulses played a role in getting the EU software patent bill rejected. So one might almost conclude that it's always best to want the opposite of what he wants. More importantly, he was involved with some of that "open standards" lobbying, and the people and organizations in that field are pretty much IBM-aligned because IBM contributes more funding to that kind of activity than any other company. Note that I'm for truly open standards. I'm just against open double standards and explained that in the posting I already reference at the start. So the opinions expressed by those kinds of people here aren't representative of how the wider community feels. Believe me, your common sense approach is much more widespread than a discussion like this might show. But let's be patient: the European Commission has already taken a very important step by launching antitrust probes, and the longer it takes, the more lies we can expect from the usual suspects, but at the same time, more and more of the truth will come out and ever more people will realize that some people didn't tell them the truth. I have enough patience and perseverance, but again, it feels good to be supported already now.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:47 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
Oh what a drama! See, I don't know anything about Hercules/TurboHercules or you and I don't have anything for or against you. But that constant bickering and noise here are enough now. This is not slashdot where I can easily filter out a 1000 comments. It is apparent to me that the involved people here are not interested in changing their point of view, why don't you all shut up for a while and go outside for a bit.
>However, that "PJ" (who has never spoken up at an industry conference or anything like that, so she must have something to hide)
I don't have anything against you (besides that the noise annoys me), but THAT argument is undue and indecent and lets you be my #2 in my plonk list. Sorry dude, I have never spoken at an industry conference either and would prefer to keep it that way, so I must have something to hide as well. Even if a person choses to remain completely anonymous and even if she were totally fictious, that doesn't make her information or analyses less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts). And before you put me in some groklaw corner, I visit that page every 2 months and have never posted there.
Common sense Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:18 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] But that constant bickering and noise here are enough now. I understand what you mean, but please appreciate that all the time I've been just responding to what others brought up, debunking Groklie after Groklie (which doesn't necessarily make the people who were misled liars -- at least some of them were undoubtedly sincere). All I had said in my second reply far up above was that the European Commission's decision to launch investigations shows that it wasn't as pointless as some claimed. I didn't even want to address any details because that simple statement stood on its own. Certain people then raised detail after detail, and I reacted. It is apparent to me that the involved people here are not interested in changing their point of view, why don't you all shut up for a while and go outside for a bit. Sorry, but if you rethink this, you may notice all by yourself that this is flawed. There's a large audience that gets the chance to hear the opposing points of view and form an opinion. Some have in fact expressed appreciation for that opportunity, right here on this page. What you say would mean that there should never be a debate in any of the houses of US Congress, and it would do away with the vast majority of all TV shows. The participants in those debates won't change their points of view either, but there's value to an audience interested in the subject. THAT argument is undue and indecent and lets you be my #2 in my plonk list. Sorry dude, I have never spoken at an industry conference either and would prefer to keep it that way, so I must have something to hide as well. Even if a person choses to remain completely anonymous and even if she were totally fictious, that doesn't make her information or analyses less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts). OK, so please forgive me if I you are a public figure and I just didn't recognize your user name here. For now I assume that you are not. Therefore, your decision not to speak at industry conferences is a totally different thing than if you talk about a person like PJ. PJ is the only public figure in FOSS never to have spoken at an industry conference nor to have disclosed her professional track record (former and current employers). I will admit that for the sake of brevity I didn't add that there's no information about her biography that's available. That combined with her absence from public events is even more unique. My track record is well-documented and I think it's reasonable to expect that of people who have a certain level of exposure in such debates. It's a matter of transparency. There must be a balance between transparency and privacy, and where the balance is struck is very much related to the exposure someone gets (and utilizes to influence opinion-forming processes). In your case that may be the right one; in my case it is; in PJ's case it definitely isn't. It does raise serious questions. What you say about whether things are less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts) is true at first sight, but too idealistic. Please take into account that there are a number of fanboys who are basically brainwashed by her, to varying degrees. Of course I always want to focus on the facts. If you look at the things I wrote in this discussion here, you can see it's about 99% about the issues and only 1% about such credibility matters.
Common sense Posted Sep 3, 2010 0:10 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] PJ is the only public figure in FOSS never to have spoken at an industry conferenceThat's utter and complete rubbish, unless you define 'public figure' so narrowly that it excludes virtually everyone but Linus (or perhaps you define it it mean 'people who have spoken at industry conferences, plus PJ'). There are a good few shy people in this field, y'know. Some of them run significant free software projects. But perhaps that doesn't make them 'public' enough.
Common sense Posted Sep 3, 2010 3:38 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link]
If you had provided examples of leaders of significant projects who've never appeared at conferences, it would be clearer what your definition of "public figure" is.
In my opinion, one key criterion is whether people influence political debates aggressively.
Someone who contributes code and uploads it to a repository -- or moderates/maintains such a code base -- may do something very important but isn't necessarily a public figure unless the project really is as world-famous as Linux, MySQL, Apache and a few others.
PJ doesn't do any of that. What she does is political activism and in that area I don't know anyone else hiding like that. She comes up with conspiracy theories about others but never even presents herself, meaning there may be very very interesting things that would come out the moment she'd take the risk of anyone identifying her because of some direct or indrect connection with something or someone.
Common sense Posted Sep 3, 2010 21:27 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Or, alternatively, she might simply be shy. She's said as much more than once.
But perhaps you'd prefer to believe your conspiracy theory than someone's words. You really are more like PJ than you realise :/
Misanthropy Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:34 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] You see, you incite drama, argue in a sloppy way and then you go ad hominem. He always opposed what I did, but ultimately my strategic impulses played a role in getting...I am sorry for you. The reader above confirms the dominant narrative: That TH as a company was set up for the very purpose to go after IBM's mainframe business. We may differ whether we think TH management was naive or knew the escalation process leading to an antitrust process in advance. I don't see why you have to oppose that so fiercely... Nothing wrong about it, you are free to tell alternative stories and convince the relevant stakeholders. Good luck! I could not care less.
Misanthropy Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:56 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] The discussant you refer to supported my views to a hugely greater extent than yours. Your claim is a "staged" drama, and for a strong claim you present nothing in terms of strong facts. Not even strong indications. All you have is a time line, and I just explained in this comment that since IBM doesn't treat the Hercules open source project any better than it treats the TH company, we talk about an 11-year-old project, even if a young company then lodged the complaint, after eight months of trying to work things out with IBM. I explained that MySQL took even longer from the start of the FOSS project to the foundation of the MySQL company. Just like in TH's case, the founder of the project also founded the company.
Selling Popcorn Posted Aug 22, 2010 17:43 UTC (Sun) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] The discussant... supported my views to a hugely greater extent than yours.The discussant didn't understand why you get opposition (because you attack anyone for unknown reasons) and had his independent thoughts. You are free to share your views, but others enjoy the same freedom. If you feel rightious, as food for thought:
Two reasons why Posted Aug 22, 2010 17:54 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] To answer all of your questions at once (because they're overlapping and I can't see why you have two bullet points), there are two reasons for which I help shed light on the issue. One, I was the first one (although just by coincidence) to publish IBM's threat letter (Eric Raymond was also about to do it) and that's why I get blamed by some for whatever "Groklies" some have been told about the TurboHercules case. So this is about the appropriateness and accuracy of my blogging. Two, I'm indeed very sympathetic to TurboHercules's situation because it's exactly the kind of destructive, anticompetitive use of software patents against FOSS that I always feared would happen. As you actually know all too well, others in our anti-software-patent movement criticized me back in 2004/2005 for talking too much about the threat software patents represent to FOSS. So it's a situation I've cared about for a long time, even when others said it should be positioned as only a small and medium-sized business (SMB) issue. I actually tried with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign to strike about a 50-50 balance between FOSS and SMB concerns. TurboHercules is both: it's FOSS and it's a start-up. I repeat that you made strong claims and served extremely weak tea when asked to substantiate them. So far, the European Commission's view of the case is apparently very different from yours. When they deal with cases, they have case teams assigned to them (consisting of people with legal, economic and technical knowledge), and they have access to lots of material. It's surprising that you consider yourself in a better position to assess the case.
Two reasons why Posted Aug 22, 2010 19:08 UTC (Sun) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link]
The case will be decided by the competent competition authority, on the merits of the case. No rationale for public campaigning or partisan action.
Two reasons why Posted Aug 22, 2010 19:14 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link]
I never said that my discussion with community members here on LWN is campaigning or whatever else one might consider to be a means of influencing the process. I'm all for due process. I just explained what I did and why, and my thinking.
Common sense Posted Sep 3, 2010 0:05 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Horst von Brand is a regular here. He's generally reasonable: what he says is worth listening to.
As someone with no dog in this fight (but a strong loathing of software patents and newSCO) both PJ *and* you come across as, bluntly, willing to discard tact and at times common sense in the pursuit of your goals, and you both seem very prone to accusing others of conspiracy without providing proof... In your case I suspect some of this is a language barrier. In PJ's case I suspect the paranoia comes from SCO *actually* conspiring against her (which would make anyone paranoid), and the assumption that the enemy of her enemy must be her friend in all matters (obviously fallacious as far as I can see).
Thomas Vinje is highly skilled but doesn't have a monopoly on the truth Posted Aug 20, 2010 9:05 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048) [Link] I must add that you just made a really outrageously malicious claim by calling TurboHercules a "non-pra[c]ticing entity". It's a real company as you can see on their website with real offerings. The only thing that prevents them from doing business on a much larger scale is IBM's anticompetitive tying of IBM hardware to the z/OS operating system. So what you say is not only a lie but also despicably cynical.
I like the smell of NPE in the morning Posted Aug 20, 2010 9:31 UTC (Fri) by rebentisch (guest, #69660) [Link] So what you say is not only a lie but also despicably cynical.You ought be careful to accuse someone of a "lie", at least in my jurisdiction. You are free to replace "NPE" by a less politically correct term, then there is no need to argue about the "P". It's a real company... with real offerings. The only thing that prevents them from doing business on a much larger scale is...I see.
|
|
||||||||||||