Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Daniel Lyons of Forbes Admits Being Snowed by SCO

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the very-glad-this-is-over dept.

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.'"

2 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Start with Dan, end with Congress... by Grog6 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dan is a fucktard, for sure.

    But did you notice the loss of one of our Constitutional Rights today?

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Start with Dan, end with Congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Speaking of the Constitution, did you notice that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were cosponsors for S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, which would give Washington DC congressional representation. This isn't in the same league as "what does well regulated mean?". This isn't in the same league a "fire in a crowded theatre." No possible interpretation of the Constitution would allow DC to have a congressional representative. No court decision has ever suggested they could have congressional representation.

      If this was a high school constitutional exam, they would have flunked. Yet 57[1] senators demonstrated just 2 days ago that they don't understand anything of the constitution they have sworn to uphold.

      1. The vote was for a motion to proceed, so 60 votes were needed.