| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:10 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66)Parent article: SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
OK, I can't resist. Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other software companies if the GPL [General Public License] is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry. Meanwhile, we can all be assured that no company which adhered to a proprietary software model has ever gone out of business! Right? Right? What an idiot. The sad thing is that his misinformation keeps being echoed, which just lends it an air of credence. -Rob
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld) Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:21 UTC (Fri) by dvrabel (subscriber, #9500) [Link] "Clearly, bronze just about killed our flint mining company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other flint mining companies if bronze is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry." I think Mr McBride hasn't heard of progress. David
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld) Posted Sep 15, 2003 17:18 UTC (Mon) by gleef (guest, #1004) [Link] The example I prefer to use are the lamplighters. During the 19th century, many cities had key city streets lit by gaslights. These gave light to the streets, which reduced crime and made it more comfortable to walk (or drive a carriage) at night. On the other hand, not only did they occasionally start fires, but they required the city to hire people to turn each of them on at dusk, and extinguish each of them later in the night. These men, called lamplighters, had a solid, steady job for a long time.Starting in the 1880's, cities started to get decent power generators, which allowed them to replace the gaslights with incadescent electric ones. Large segments of city lighting could be handled by one guy flipping a switch at the power plant. Suddenly, the lamplighters were out of jobs. Early on, many lamplighters were surprised that their career was suddenly gone, but some towns didn't make the switch until the 1920's. In some of these cases the delay was surely due to lamplighters lobbying against electric service, to save their already obsolete jobs. If the lamplighters succeeded in preventing municipal power, just to save their own jobs, where would we be today?
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:38 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] The sad thing is that his misinformation keeps being echoed, which just lends it an air of credence.While rebuttals get much less exposure. Example: Reuters. The web pages of this large and well-regarded news agency (reuters.com) have a useful feature where you enter a stock symbol and you get tables and a graph of the share value, together with recent news abut the company and its press releases. Try the stockquote for SCOX, and you see only the SCO:s side of the story. No wonder their stock price keeps climbing every time SCO says something, as this is one of the places where investors are very likely to look for company information...
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:24 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] I'm starting to get really disgusted with the way the American press is handling this. I sent feedback to ComputerWorld on the matter this morning.I *still* want to know this: If something stinks about what McBride is doing, and private-enterprise Linux supporters know this, where is the opposing coverage in the financial-oriented press? Unless something starts changing, I will begin to wonder exactly how fair-weather our friends are.
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:57 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] The problem is that the press likes new things. SCO is always changing there story to keep it interesting. The open source community has kept on saying the same thing over and over.IBM: We have a perpetual license. If we want to be in the news, then we have to start doing new things every week.
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:16 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] I looked in the "letter from Linus" thread, and found out that people in our sphere may have something big coming up.If it's anything like the speculation, it will definietly be "something different."
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 15, 2003 11:18 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] From the grin on the face of the Cheshire Cat (ESR), I think it might well be a case of "hello court, look at all this GPL code we found in SCO Unix. Can we have an injunction to stop them shipping Unix, please?".All accompanied by mounds of well researched evidence, affidavits by authors, etc etc etc. Bear in mind that in order to get the judge to issue an injunction, you have to have "a reasonable chance of winning", I think they're looking at making it so watertight that they don't have a hope in hell of losing, and the judge will only need one or two braincells to agree with them :-) SCO just won't know what hit 'em ... Cheers,
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:57 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] I also got a nice response from ComputerWorld right away, from someone who apparently believes SCO are nothing but wind (found postings from her on the SCO discussion forum on ComputerWorld.)It's good to know.
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:16 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] >The problem is that the press likes new things. SCO is always changing>there story to keep it interesting. The open source community has kept >on saying the same thing over and over. That's not really the issue here. Rather, the financial press is organized to index news by the companies involved and there is a presupposition that whatever press releases a company puts out about its business is relevant and newsworthy (about that business). There is no such presupposition about what other unrelated parties have to say about the business. For example, the New York Times keeps running stories and editorials about IBM's liability/misconduct in operating semiconductor manufacturing clean rooms with toxic chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects during the 1970s and 1980s but you will find few to none of these stories linked under IBM on Reuters. An actual news development about a specific lawsuit probably would make its way there, but not a commentary or general interest piece.
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 13, 2003 3:07 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Right!!!, like you can read "Where are the WMDs" in the press every day...thought the FS/OSS has really something new everyday!Just admit that "The Press is Controlled to only pass the political dominant will"... And it isn't only America, its everywhere.... GOVERNMENTS LIE DELIBERATELY OR BY OMISSION EVERYDAY, AND TRY TO CONTROL PEOPLE BY DESINFORMATION... This is not a conspiracy theory, its the reality, just admit it... So no real press coverage for Linux/FS/OSS,..., we all got to live with it.
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:13 UTC (Fri) by neurocrapper (guest, #14025) [Link] I'm sick of PR lies trumping the truth.So many trusted "news sources" are actually one-sided PR lies. Does Fox/NY Post tell "fair and balanced" truth on Bush? Will Microsoft tell both sides on Sco? [is Jonathan Cohen a 'tech analyst'(which infers impartiality) as the title says?] More on Sco and Jonathan Cohen Of course not, alas. How do we stop one-sided, self-interested spreading of lies more effectively?
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:19 UTC (Fri) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link] Our community lacks a nexus of strategic influence and that's why one-sided reporting continues to frustrate us. In the specific examples being given, balance can be achieved if another organization issued press releases and media advisories challenging those issued by SCO. If the org had membership including publically traded corporations, it would increase the likelihood of coverage.Then, the challenge would show up at any financial site when someone types in the SCOX symbol. Likewise, the challenge would naturally generate more media coverage of the OSS position. If the resources could be found to build a nexus of strategic influence, our community could REACT quickly (just as Perens and Raymond have done). It's a job for a quarterback with great contacts and communication skills. Someone extremely fleet on their feet. But, REACT is the wrong approach. Our community needs to be proactive. We need to mount a sophisticated and unimpeachable outreach campaign to the media, and to actually put our story on the road. There is no substitute for person-person contact. Our long term strategy must be proactive, not reactive. And it should be done face to face with carefully selected media. Writing to pubs like Computerworld AFTER they've interviewed Darl is fine, but it makes far more sense to talk with them in advance, and to help them ask the right questions before an interview. Performed professionally, CW would most likely also include the other side of the story in their presentation. A proactive program would arm the media and analyst community with research materials, URL's and most importantly, unimpeachable sources willing to talk on and off the record. I've participated in programs like this for many years -- on both the media and the corporate side -- and can testify to their success. Assuming we actually approach a trial date for SCO / IBM, you can bet the farm that both sides will field proactive teams to preposition media coverage. We can hope that SCO runs out of $$$ long beforehand. Privately, I've been told this will never get to trial. Apart from our valid desire to expose SCO's deeply flawed reasoning and maddening actions, what I am advocating makes sense anyway. Even if SCO never happened, the OSS community needs to engage in proactive strategic outreach. You only have to look at the headlines that Redmond is generating (Linux on the Desktop more expensive than Windows; Linux TCO much higher than Windows; Cost to develop Linux applications much higher than Windows). Which organization is correct for this program? LI sounds right. So does FSF. And OSDL. What do you guys think?
One sided reporting continues Posted Sep 12, 2003 23:35 UTC (Fri) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link] Which organization is correct for this program? LI sounds right. So does FSF. And OSDL.What do you guys think? They could help. But I think what would help as well would be if our community actively engaged in a letter writing campaign to major media outlets. For example, we could target NPR--let's try to get a spot on All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/contact/ index.html). I agree 100% with you on the "proactive" stance. We need stories in the major media dedicated to the open source community--not just our side of the FUD, but who we are and what we represent.
Let us pick our battles Posted Sep 15, 2003 8:11 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] But, REACT is the wrong approach.On the contrary, it is not our job to mix in these stupid investor games. Since the SCO issue is obviously an investor scam, let us just answer the technical points and ignore the FUD. I think esr, Bruce Perens and the rest are doing an excellent job here: informing the public, but not going into the dirty game. Linux is not a news generator; and being on the defensive is just the right approach, IMHO. Let another one punch this balloon down.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people. Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:44 UTC (Fri) by jmitchel (guest, #11611) [Link] Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other software companies if the GPL [General Public License] is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry.It really couldn't have happened to more deserving companies. SCO products suck. They have always sucked. They would not have ceased to suck without free software. As far as I know, SCO's competitors in the unix on x86 space suck, they always sucked, they would not have ceased to suck without free software. According to an old copy of the jargon file (circa 1993) SCO's own engineers dubbed their CDE port Open Deathtrap. Inspires confidence, doesn't it? The problem isn't the GPL. Linux would have beaten SCO (slower, but as surely) if it cost $699 and didn't come with source. If Linux hadn't been developed, *BSD would have beaten SCO with its BSD (and some days rabidly anti-GPL) licensed code. *BSD would have beaten SCO even if it had cost $699 and didn't come with source. Free software has affected everybody, but the companies that give reasonable value-add are still doing fine. Cisco hasn't gone under because people were building cheap PCs to do routing. Sun and HP haven't gone under because people decided they could run Payroll on a cheap PC with Linux and MySQL. And if you need a mainframe, you need a mainframe, you buy IBM and they'll be happy to ship it with Linux if that floats your boat.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people. Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:49 UTC (Fri) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] It really couldn't have happened to more deserving companies. SCO products suck. They have always sucked. They would not have ceased to suck without free software. As far as I know, SCO's competitors in the unix on x86 space suck, they always sucked, they would not have ceased to suck without free software.Your word choice is "lacking even in verbal vigor, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong". Rebuttals of this kind are not helping dispel the impression of open-source software users and developers that Rob Enderle's articles gave months ago. In any way could you replace the raw scorn with some information?
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people. Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:31 UTC (Fri) by gsc (guest, #6830) [Link] You may not have appreciated the delivery, but the message is 100% spot on target. I for one, appreciate straight talk that communicates effectively and economically. I find no fault w/the original comment in any way. It must be difficult to be so delicate in such a vulgar time.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people. Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:39 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Absolutely. The comment was in fact right on target, but the quote from Tolkien brought up a most appropriate image in my mind: Darl McB as Grishnakh. :-) Now that works nicely.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people. Posted Sep 13, 2003 2:25 UTC (Sat) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] Actually, Saruman and Wormtongue come to mind when one considers the "way with words" that the SCO execs McBride and Sonntag have. Anyway, I would still find some description of the inferiority of the SCO products of interest, occasionally.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld) Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:26 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] The whole SCO bunch (before Caldera and then after) were doing a fine job at killing SCO Unix from way before any "open source threats". OTOH, there are others thriving on OSS right now.The problem is that the ones on the loosing side of the current fight are the ones that have the money and the power to make OSS' life extremely miserable. OSS has very little to oppose them in their own terms. It will be some form of guerilla warfare... and this has worked in the "real world" only against some kind of colonial power, who eventually got fed up, packed, and left (happened in the US, in the spanish colonies in south america, India, Afganistan with the USSR, Vietnam, ...). Where it was tried against local governments (with no other place to go), it usually failed miserably. Unless said local government was so inept and corrupt as to be universally hated (as it was in Cuba before Castro). In our case, the MSFTs and their ilk do very well know just how far they can turn the screw so as to get their constituencies upset, but not too angry at them. SCO is overdoing it, but only as a desperate last measure. Or perhaps their C?Os are doing it for personal short-range gain, might as well get some $$$ out of the sinking ship as it is going down anyway.
|
|
||||||||||||