Medium Cuts Staff By One-Third, Shuts Down New York and DC Offices (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Medium, the San Francisco-based online publishing platform founded in 2012, has laid off 50 employees, or roughly one-third of its staff. The company will also close offices in New York and Washington, DC. Ev Williams, Medium's CEO, wrote in a lengthy post on Wednesday that the company would be changing its business model despite ending 2016 as "our best year yet." He blamed the entire concept of "ad-driven media on the Internet" as the root of the company's shortcomings. As Williams, who is also a co-founder of Twitter, wrote: "It simply doesn't serve people. In fact, it's not designed to. The vast majority of articles, videos, and other "content" we all consume on a daily basis is paid for -- directly or indirectly -- by corporations who are funding it in order to advance their goals. And it is measured, amplified, and rewarded based on its ability to do that. Period. As a result, we getwell, what we get. And it's getting worse."
To this day, I fail to understand the hypocrisy in supporting the little guy against giants like Apple and Microsoft, but rooting for another giant, IBM, to decimate SCO.
Some of us pay attention to who is right and wrong, rather than deciding absolutely everything based on "big mean corporation."
SCO originally filed for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. Later, they decided breach of contract might be better. Still later, they decided maybe copyright infringement. Obviously, SCO wasn't so sure exactly what they were complaining about - not nearly as sure as you are.
They claimed that up to 0.0001% of the Linux kernel might have been derived from Unix, but refused to say which parts. As the judge began to strike down their claims unless they identified which code they were talking about, they pointed to some BSD licensed code written by Thompson - code they clearly had no copyright rights to.
When it was pointed out that Novell, not SCO, owned the Unix copyright, SCO tried to buy the copyrights from Novell. Again, Novell clearly wasn't too sure they owned the copyrights, they were trying to buy them from Novell, yet you're sure that they already owned them.
SCO then claimed that the GPL itself is illegal and unconstitutional! Which would of course mean that SCO were themselves unlawfully distributing GPL code! Yeah that annoyed some people.
SCO didn't just lose a case, they were laughed out of court repeatedly. "We're suing you for violating the copyright on Unix, but we're still trying to buy that copyright so can we have a short delay?" What!?!? It was one of the most ridiculous cases ever. That's why people didn't root for SCO, it was because SCO was engaging in ridiculous trolling that made no sense. They argued that the "offending code" was part of the Linux kernel, then argued that it wasn't. They couldn't even make up their mind.