| |||||||||||||
Updegrove's Groklaw articleUpdegrove's Groklaw articlePosted Apr 14, 2011 10:24 UTC (Thu) by jjs (guest, #10315)In reply to: Updegrove's Groklaw article by FlorianMueller Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May
Updegrove never claimed to know PJ - who she specifically is, where she lives, etc. He claimed, based on his communications, that he felt comfortable with 2 things:
1. PJ is a person. Not a he or she, not old or young, but a person. As apposed to an AI or a collective. Most likely through consistency of voice, quick turnaround, etc (I don't know specifics, ask Andy).
2. PJ is passionate about what he/she is interested in. Again, tone, consistancy, etc.
Neither of these require face to face meetings or phone calls.
Regarding balance. Gee, I have no clue of most of the reporters in the NY Times, either. In the case of Groklaw, since PJ back everything up with documentation, I can judge for myself whether she is right or not (or for that matter where on the white-black scale things are, since some of the stuff is ambiguous). I don't need to "know" PJ, or find out about her private life to judge that. No one does. I need to know her arguments and the facts behind them, which she provides in more detail than any other news source. That's the transparency that's needed, and that she provides.
(Log in to post comments)
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 14, 2011 11:57 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You just keep reiterating things that don't address the concerns I raised about "PJ" being mystery-shrouded and not verifiable. Your point (1) is very unconvincing. You just say you believe everything's fine though you don't know specifics. What Updegrove said is by far not enough for him to make the claim he made. And (2) is a strawman because an avatar shared by a team or by different people over the years can also be "passionate" etc. Even if one believed your points (1) and (2) combined, that still would not address the issues I raised on ZDNet and which Updegrove referred to. If he makes reference to my concerns and then says everything's fine, while meaning something different, then he's misleading to say the least. Concerning the backing-up of facts, didn't you click on the links in Groklaw's "sue the pants off TurboHercules" article and find out that "PJ" told the oppposite of the truth about a claimed limitation of IBM's patent pledge (the very first and central statement of that Groklaw article), especially since it was pointed out in the discussion there but not even corrected then, which means that if "PJ" saw the correction, she decided to lie anyway? Assuming the answer is No, does this concern you now? Assuming the answer is Yes, didn't that give you pause and why do you then make the claims you make here?
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 14, 2011 13:00 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
Re the Turbo Hercules stuff: Here I do side with IBM. The system is licensed to use on real, IBM machines (yes, IBM did get burned way back with the clones by Amdahl and others of their big iron running IBM software); if they opt to look the other way if somebody installs a self-compiled copy of an emulator for fooling around as an alternative to doing it on the big iron in the neighboring datacenter, that certainly is their prerogative. But they certainly will not look the other way if somebody,as part of their business operations, asks for copies of the software for running on emulated machines and leaving IBM completely out of the deal. I just don't understand how somebody even imagined that such would fly (maybe being inmersed into technical stuff can make you blind to the wider implications of what you are doing); and even less that some (clearly otherwise intelligent) people who aren't directly involved bought into this ridiculous theory. Plus I am fogetting my guideline of not feeding trolls...
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 14, 2011 16:30 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Re the Turbo Hercules stuff: Here I do side with IBM
Would you still say that if it were anyone but Florian defending them?
When Apple did more-or-less the same thing they were being Bad; when Microsoft sold copies of Windows with a EULA saying you couldn't run it virtualised they were being Evil; when IBM sell copies of their OS with a EULA saying you can't run it on anything but their own expensive hardware, suddenly that's cool?
It's a blatant abuse of a monopoly position - far worse than bundling IE or WMP with Windows or rubbish like that, but for Groklaw IBM can do no wrong, and herds of people just copy and paste their opinions from there.
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:50 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] I came to that conclusion after looking at the evidence shown in (suprise!) Groklaw's article which so inflamed Florian Mueller. At first reading, I thought IBM was being overly heavy-handed (which wouldn't have been surpsising to me, given part history); on further analysis I came to the conclusion that they were right. And then Mr. Mueller showed up and the whole discussion went down the drain (just like here).
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:55 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
I didn't show up in that Groklaw discussion on IBM. By making this completely false claim, you just show that you're not a serious participant in such discussions, @vonbrand, but willing to say anything just to defend Groklaw.
Updegrove's Groklaw article Posted Apr 15, 2011 6:29 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
I find these FM threads generally very annoying, but I have to agree with the parent: The Turbo-Hercules/IBM case sounds like a potential abuse of a monopoly in one area (copyright on critical software) to tie down another, different area (the sale of hardware, real or virtual).
|
|||||||||||||