Slashdot Mirror
Daniel Lyons of Forbes Admits Being Snowed by SCO
certain death writes "Daniel Lyons of Forbes Magazine has admitted to being snowed by SCO, regarding their lawsuit over Linux and SCO code. He specifically mentions Groklaw's role in the case, and regrets his early articles giving the company the benefit of the doubt. 'I still thought it would be foolish to predict how this lawsuit (or any lawsuit) would play out. I even wrote an article called "Revenge of the Nerds," which poked fun at the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose. Turns out those amateur sleuths were right. Now some of them are writing to me asking how I'd like my crow cooked, and where I'd like it delivered. Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true. I've told these folks it's not true. Hasn't stopped them. The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.'"
You're one of these two things:
1. A Microsoft shill
2. A complete mouth-breathing idiot
Seriously. There were very few people who fell for this. You read Groklaw, so it should have been obvious that there was something to what everybody was saying.
The only people who really feel hard for this were you, Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and, of course, the Didiot. Of those three, we know that at least the Didiot's company gets paid for "research" by Microsoft, and she even appeared in a video on their web site, and of course Maureen worked for a pro-Microsoft fake news site. I don't know about Enderle. But the point is that there was money to be made.
So, if you're not a shill, that leaves "idiot". Take your pick, buddy, I'd rather not be either one. But then, I review the facts heavily before taking sides in a case like this.
Do you have ESP?
Since Slashdot doesn't have an automatic "bad words" censor I would say the only fucktard is the one who calls someone a fucktard and doesn't have the fucking balls to just write that. Or are you going to claim you didn't want to offend anyone?
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Hmm... This is a basically just a huge case of "I told you so".
For what it's worth, I look at this like the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Talk to virtually anyone, and they would tell you "Oh yeah, OJ's guilty as sin" despite the fact that almost none of them had seen even an iota of evidence. Perhaps they intrinsicly knew he was guilty, based on his actions. But I also think most people just wanted him to be guilty regardless of the facts.
The same was true of SCO. The Linux crowd wanted SCO to be wrong. They wanted it bad. The very idea that it was even possible for SCO to be right was so horrific to them, they just knew it couldn't be true, evidence or not.
In both cases, those people just happened to be right. But in both cases, they certainly *COULD* have been wrong. They were making judgements based on emotions, not facts.
As for Groklaw, I think it's pushing it to say they "sought the truth". In Groklaws case, they sought validation of their emotional beliefs. They refused to acknowledge the existence of anything that might question that opinion. There was frequently false, and outright dishonest information on Groklaw presented as fact, with hundreds, if not thousands of cheerleaders making snide comments.
Again, it just so happesn that the facts eventually vindicated them. But that doesn't change the fact that they were closed minded and sought only to validate their preconceptions.
I think a truly objective reporter WOULD have given SCO the benefit of the doubt. Not saying they were right, of course, cause that's just as bad. But at least continuing to use the words "alledgedly" or "claims".
In fact, I think the whole mess has been a HUGE black mark on the Linux communities image. Yes, SCO was wrong, they were right, but it left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. The ends did not justify the means.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It doesn't. There isn't difference between "fuck", "f**k" or even "fsck" if used as an expletive. Alternative spellings are just pathetic (much the same as writing "M$", "Micro$oft", Shrub, Hitlery, etc.) and only shows that the author is mentally challenged.
Does anyone remember the Wally George "Hot Seat" show on local LA television in the early 80's? He had an extremely effective flaming style. He'd quote back things the guest had said or written, have his studio audience howl in laughter or boo, then when the guest starts to protest, have him forcibly removed from the stage by armed guards.
Sadly, Wally appears to have gone on to coach the President of the United States and certain presidential candidates.
Let Mr. Lyons alone. He admitted fault. That works for me.