The Register vs Groklaw: Who Gets It Right?

microbee writes "Over the past weeks Groklaw has been running a series of articles on new discoveries about SCO and Project Monterey. Surprisingly (to me, as I love both sites), The Register published another article to counter the argument of Groklaw's serials, claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."" There's also a rebuttal on groklaw as well.

Comments

Groklaw got it right

[belmolis]

I found it difficult to see the point of the Register article. There was very little in it that was actually inconsistent with what has appeared on Groklaw. The main theme seemed to be that Groklwas was wrong to think that it had made a big discovery about Project Monterey, but Groklaw has never claimed to have made such a discovery, just to have assembled lots of evidence that counters SCO's claims. The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.

As for Groklaw's alleged errors helping SCO, I don't see it. At worst, Groklaw has exaggerated the significance of the history of Project Monterey. SCO has made no hay out of this, and I don't see how it could, even if the Register's claims were true.

Re:Groklaw got it right

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I would much rather have her correcting small mistakes in articles than just leaving them there. Or does the register choose to leave all mistakes in their articles even if someone else points them out?

Register seems to be missing the point

[stevew]

In looking at the "response" by the register, it looks more like the original article than a response.

In any case, the big problem the register has is PJ's summary of how Monterey was a "stopgap" on IBM's way to Linux.

That seems to be much ado about nothing (then we ARE talking about the register ;-)

Whether Monterey was a "stopgap" or not doesn't matter to the case, but rather whether SCO was aware of IBM's intent to run the code on the power PC. THAT is why the "evidence" that has been recorded on Groklaw is important.

Echo chamber

[grahamlee]

One part of the reg's article was certainly correct - that a number of these sites act as echo chambers for people who want their own beliefs reaffirmed. So far in this Slashdot thread I've seen "well it's obvious, Groklaw gets it right" or similar sentiment displayed in multiple comments, without one statement of factual evidence used to corroborate the claim. Me, I don't know anything about Monterey, but I'd be happy to consider any evidence that people are willing to post :-)

Re:Give up and Die, SCO

[eyegor]

Given how weak their case appears, I can't imagine that anyone wants their IP. Nor can I imagine that any self-respecting Unix SA would want to support their product.

They've been left in the dust by Linux and they're really not relevent anymore. If anything, they're the posterchild for why you should abandon propriatary OSs. I hope Bill Gate$ is paying attention.

Re:The article was more M$ trolling

[squiggleslash]

It's not troll tuesday yet Tom!

Andrew Orlowski wrote the best coverage I saw of the Microsoft monopoly trial, and pretty much changed my mind from one of "Well, if Microsoft wants to include a browser, then so be it, you can't stop progress" to "Hang the bastards!" (obviously I mean as past tense being "hung" not "hanged", I'm an opponent of the Death Penalty. Ooer, little bit of politics, little bit of politics.)

He's anything but a Microsoft astroturfer.

Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO?

[Ashtead]

...claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."

Of course it is difficult to envisage this, since Groklaw isn't about trying to sway any court case. The lawyers for IBM and SCOX are the ones to make that kind of impact, and they have to rely on whatever are the facts. Groklaw is merely reporting the various twists and turns of this case, and in this process it is helping the lawyers and the technical people understand what the other say and how they think. As far as any conjecture being presented there, this appears mostly based on available material, such as court filings and technical documentation generally available. There may seem to be a bias against SCO, but if the realities of the case had been different, there could just as well have been an apparent bias against IBM.

As for being valuable to SCO PR, I'd beg to differ! Groklaw has been able to neutralize much of the FUD that Darl McBride would have us believe about SCO owning and controlling this and that... if anything can be compared to ammunition, it would be the torpedoes that are about to sink SCO. Even without Groklaw, SCO would eventually have foundered, it would have taken longer, and resulted in a slower growth of Linux.

Andrew Orlowski

[MythMoth]

Do you remember Jon Katz? I don't know if he still posts on Slashdot, because (hallelujah) they provided the block-Jon-Katz option in user preferences.

I've stopped reading El Reg because they don't have a block Andrew Orlowski option. I could tell within a sentence (without reading the byline) that an article was by Andrew.

Previously his articles have dripped with vitriolic envy of Google. I'm guessing that the new ones have the same acidic content agains Groklaw. While I've doubts about the objectivity (ho ho) of Groklaw, life is too short to read Andrew's rantings on the subject.

Re:My money is on The Register

[MathFox]

"The saga illustrates one of the perils of online forums, the "echo chamber" effect. Many participants join a forum to have beliefs re-affirmed, and context is often a casualty. It's also a characteristic of the "information age" that facts are often applauded regardless of whether they make sense in a particular context."

A brilliant explanation of how something becomes "fact" on the Internet. I wouldn't say The Register's article is really an indictment of Groklaw, but perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide this particular case.

We will let the courts decide; but there needed to be a place to rectify the FUD SCO spouted about Linux. The best way to fight FUD is to provide the facts, even if they are not 100% in your favour. If Groklaw seems biassed in the SCO-IBM case, that is because the facts support IBM's view of the case.

One of Groklaw's missions is to provide access to the available information so that the reader can form his own opinion. We feel we are quite successfull with that; even SCO uses our archive of legal documents.

Re:My money is on The Register

[warpSpeed]

but perhaps it would be better if Groklaw let the courts decide this particular case.

Yes, perhaps we should stop reporting on what goes on in the courts, and even better corporate boardrooms. Why bother, what could the public possibly gain from a though scrutiny of these public entities? The courts can decide for themselves what is right and wrong with out the help of Groklaw. I would really hate for the data that has been compiled on Groklaw to get into the wrong layers hands, it could thorw the whole case off for SCO. How dare PJ attempt to refute each and every accusation put forth by SCO. I mean SCO would _never_ use the media like this, would they?

How about blinders for the public too, no need for all these messy details to make it outside of the court room. We simple folk cannot possibly comprehend the subtiles of SCO trying to bludgeon linux by suing IBM, we should just quietly wait while the fate of open and free software is tested in the courts.

Gimme a break...

I never understood the fascination with the Reg...

[Evro]

After seeing how many people relied on the Register as a news source I figured I should check it out. After a few days I gave up; I was really put off by their lack of professionalism in reporting (I know lightning will strike me for writing that on Slashdot...) and the blatant bias in everything they write. I have come to view it as a cross between the Weekly World News and People Magazine of technology reporting. It's more like entertainment than news.

Here's an example of their crapola: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_a ttack/ .

Can you imagine a newspaper printing, "Here's a quote from president Bush. Haha... just kidding!" I have a sense of humor, but there are times when stuff like that is appropriate and times when it's not. It's like an entire site of editorials and wannabe pundits.