Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The SCO Trial Through A New Lens

Posted by Zonk on from the thems-fightin-words dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On Yahoo! News they've got an article by Paul Murphy entitled, SCO, IBM and Outcomes-Based Circular Reasoning. Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'. He writes, 'By itself this was a straightforward contractual dispute that could, and should, have been settled quickly and easily.' And that, 'Although SCO hasn't formulated its complaint in this way, I believe it could meet these, or similar, requirements quite easily and therefore has every reason to be confident that the court will eventually enforce its stop-use order against IBM.' He also goes on to insult Linux advocates by stating that, 'the position being run up the flagpole by what Stalin famously called "useful idiots" is first that the lawsuit itself is no longer a real issue and secondly that its consequences have been generally positive.'"

7 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. cracky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Cracky is the most beautiful girl ever.

    1. Re:cracky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      http://tinyurl.com/7k7b3 (work safe link)

      Woa! Doom 3 for the SNES!

  2. montreal? by montreal!hahahaha · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    uhuhuhuhuh

    --
    Words of a bright disciple: "If you have to ask, my young friend, then you will never know."
    1. Re:montreal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I think the parent has raised a valid and insightful point.

  3. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This guy sucks, and i'm FP baby

  4. Wow, you really are an asshole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    So what are you saying--that this anonymous poster is a liar? Do you have any proof of this?

    Seems to me that you're actually doing what you're accusing him of doing. And the fact that you posted under a (free) account doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

    It's obvious why someone would post something like this anonymously if it were true. That doesn't mean it is true, mind you. But it doesn't give you the right to baselessly slander said anonymous poster either.

    Posted anonymously for obvious reasons lol

  5. an invitation to Paul Murphy by alizard · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    If you believe what you say, I'm sure you'll have no problem putting your personal life savings into SCO.

    After all, if what you say is true, you'll be right at a time when the market and the consensus among the informed is wrong... and your savings will suddenly multiply in value as IBM and the other companies SCO has taken legal action against start paying the license fees they owe plus punitive damages as per the forthcoming court order. I mean, look what happened to AutoZone!

    So when are you going to find yourself a chunk of SCOX for yourself? Your fortune's a waitin'! Don't you believe what you're telling the public?

    DISCLAIMER: I am not a registered financial adviser and this is not investment advice.

    --
    Tech Public Policy stuff