So they want to collect data, and if you want to run the beta, that's what you have to put up with. Understandable, but utterly stupid.
The reason it is stupid is that they are coming into a market already dominated by someone else. If they were coming in with a product that out-featured Parallels, having a temporarily crippled beta would be acceptable, but they haven't done that.
I think VMware isn't accustomed to being the underdog. In that position, you need to offer more.
I'm sure VMware will overtake Parallels: they have the resources, the experience and the user base on other platforms. But this is a lousy way to start.
"- Fusion handles Networking much better than Parallels. E.g. my cisco VPN works out of the box in shared mode. I never got it to work with Parallels, athough they claim to support it."
Funny - my experience was exactly the opposite. In fact, I've yet to have networking work at all for any Fusion machine I've installed or downloaded, while I never had any issue with Parallels networking.
That said, I'm sure Fusion will eventually exceed Parallels - but this beta doesn't even come close.
I'm hoping that possession of this gene controls something really important, but that we don't find out until the racists have claimed it as their "proof". Then the announcement comes: this gene causes substandard IQ's, small penises.. something good like that:-)
Well, the real issue is whether a search engine should have given that top billing, and I'd say no, it shouldn't have. It is a moderately popular page (12,000+ page views in its life so far), so it should probably appear somewhere north of hit number 43 gazillion, but I don't think it should ever pop up as number one.. except for specific phrases, of course.
I edited that date out, btw : it really isn't important to the page and as you noted, could confuse people.
But that's not a "blog page", and even if it were, comments still belong at the bottom, I think. Some like to put an "updated" date at the top of the page, bit I don't see the point of that and anyway it's nothing to do with this discussion of search engines.
I don't know why you say that first link is not relevant. I wrote it, and it IS political commentary on the difference between Linux and Windows. As to up to date, that article has comments as recent as April of this year, so it is "up to date" in that sense.
The article itself is a little out of date in that Linux has improved since 2001, but Windows has not (at least for the points I made there about being able to do difficult tasks), so the article still has validity.
But.. like you, I prefer Google search results any day:-)
If I have an OS that lets me easily install and run other OSes, and I have very fast internet, and lots of vm and vdisk, and you write something cool in YourVeryOwnOS, I'll download the whole thing. All it has to be is quick and easy.. and I don't necessarily even care about the neato features that made YVOO appealing to you, as long as the app you wrote for it does something I want or need.
I don't think of bad spellers as less intelligent; some quite intelligent people just cannot spell.
It's perhaps less excusable with computer spell checking so easily available, but my real objection is that it impairs my reading speed: my brain recognizes the patterns of correctly spelled words but can come to a grinding halt when it scans some extreme aberration.
I don't like having to slow down.. but it does make me wonder: are poor spellers also slow readers?
Nor is it billiard ball physics: do you remember that part of the reason for doing this is to find out more about the makeup and structure? Do you know its center of mass, for instance? And have you forgotten that there are zillions of other things zipping around out there?
But as I said, it probably is insignificant and if it isn't, then there's so much confusion associated that it doesn't matter. It's still hubris to pretend that you have any real knowledge of what the results will be.
The point wasn't that you could experience turbulence. The point is that there are a lot of things we really don't understand well. Turbulence is one of those things, and gravity is another.
It probably is insignificant. And if it isn't, an Earth threatening result from being wrong is surely only one possibility of many billions. But I still dislike the hubris of scientists pretending they really understand physics, gravity, etc. Maybe soon, but sure not now.
"You would need much heavier (or faster) probe to change comet's path significantly."
Yeah. So they say. It's "insignificant". And yet I go other places where I read about a butterfly in Mexico affecting New England weather, about how turbulence is poorly understood and often unexpected results occur.. but, sure, it's all perfectly safe.
Actually, there are still quite a few SCO users left. Most of those that aren't completely ignorant (though there are those) are either "stuck" because their app doesn't run on anything but SCO or because while they could switch to Linux, relicensing costs for their app are too high or redevelopment is too difficult.
I have been involved in quite a few switchovers for former SCO clients, and not all were particularly smooth, though all have been succesful. It's the stupid little stuff that bites you - slight syntax differences in shell scripts, path differences, that kind of thing. The easiest are the ones where all they have is one app and don't use it for anything else, but even those can have little gotchas.
I find that it's easiest to persuade a switch when the hardware and OS plainly have to be upgraded anyway, but I do constantly warn the SCO users that they need to be prepared to switch even if they don't want to - the funny thing is that those who take that advice and put up a Linux box "just for testing" have ended up switching more quickly than they or I thought they would.
Other folks are mired more deeply and would have to buy entirely new application software to move off SCO. Often these are people with marginal businesses or tight profit margins; they didn't move to better software years ago because they couldn't afford to. So they are very, very stuck: the cost of a switch is more than they could bear.
I suppose somewhere there may be some die hard person who really thinks they should stay with SCO because it's "better". I doubt there are many of those left, but once in a while I do hear someone wistfully comment on how "reliable" their SCO has been. But even those folks seem to understand that it's time to move on..
Interestingly, one of the holdouts who as recently as 90 days ago insisted on sticking it out called me this morning to discuss planning a transition. He *could* do Windows, but is adamantly opposed, so it will be Linux. One more down, but still plenty to go.
Well, sure - I'd rather they installed Linux or bought a Mac, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it? If they are going to insist upon Windows (as most of them do), it often makes more sense to buy new than mess around with a piece of old, very broken junk.
I had this just last night: a friend called, his five year old Windows ME machine is doing BSOD's and is infected with viri that his Norton can't kill. I suggested he buy new. He said "I'm so sick of all this virus and spam crap. What should I do?"
I took a deep breath. "Don't say Mac!", he said. I took another breath. "Don't say Linux either", he said.
"So what do you want me to say?", I asked. "Buy a new machine with XP and all the virus and spyware software you want, you are still going to fight this stuff every day. But you want Windows so I can't tell you anything else.."
So that's what he bought. What can you do? They are scared to death of Linux, Macs are "too expensive" (they aren't) and that's the way it is. I do what I can, but you can't stop the tide.
Perhaps so. But the transfer for a Windows machine is simple with XP's File and Settings Transfer Wizard, and if the tech support person has any morals at all, they will advise the customer not to throw away money.
When someone with a badly infected or otherwise flaky machine asks me to "look at it", if it's more than a couple of years old, I always advise them that we could easily eat up the cost of a new machine and they will still be left with an old piece of near junk when we are done.
With most folks, I can tell them how to use the F&ST wizard by themselves by referring them to a web page that walks them through it. They don't waste money, they get a brand new machine, and then they or I can wipe the old box clean, reinstall, and perhaps recycle it to someone else in the company or family.
I like to walk in whistling "If I only had a brain" from the Wizard of OZ. I find that sets the right expectations.
Dressing for success helps too: I prefer jeans and a T-Shirt in the summer, and whatever keeps me warm in the winter. The suits really respect someone who avoids their dress code. Or else it upsets them. Either way, I'm happy.
I also refuse to wear a watch. If asked why, I explain that it's because I bill by the hour. Amazingly, no one ever even seems confused by that answer.
And no, I'm really not joking about any of this. Life is way too short to put up with any situation you don't like. I "fire" clients every year because they are painful to work with, too demanding, disrespectful..
I'm there to perform some service. I don't expect my butt kissed, but I won't put up with nastiness or pure stupidity either. There are too many good clients out there.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not MK itself is a spamtool, was it really smart to post the steps that led to resolution? Nothing really forced this person to stop his actions; it was just threats with no guaranteed teeth, as the posting now explains to him. So why wouldn't he now just put the site back up, knowing that the threat was potentially empty?
Maybe the Pak site would have objected to his forged email, but maybe they don't care a bit - the article certainly makes it sound like Nigel was about to give up in frustration. Now the copycat site knows that..
Ah but wait: I AM concerned about my business being hurt by SCO's actions. Not the SCO business particularly, but the Linux business.
Actually, if SCO went out of business (and I really, really doubt that - I know that won't be a popular opinion here, but it is my feeling), it would be good for me: having decades of experience in SCO, Sun and Linux puts me in a good position to profit from folks who would need to move to other platforms.
However, I don't particularly WANT that: I don't like earning money from misery. I'll take the work, of course, but I'd rather earn my keep doing useful things.
But if Linux goes down, that could seriously damage all Unix, and the Microsoft war machine will just keep on rolling unimpeded. That's not good for me, as I detest Microsoft work and would be very mierable if forced into it. I can do it: I have an (outdated) MCSE, but I would be bitter and unhappy.
But.. and here's the cavalier part you don't grok: if SCO really does have a case against IBM, I have to agree that they have a right to sue and recover damages EVEN IF THAT HURTS ME. I wish they were smarter, because I think this can only hurt them as well, but the cookie crumbles as it will, and if it crumbles against me, I have to live with it. I think that's just unfortunate reality: shit happens, and then you die.
From my own selfish point of few, I would hope that SCO has nothing, that Linux and Open Source are entirely vindicated and emerge from this stronger than ever. I also hope to win the lottery tomorrow night - either one will be just fine with me.
but reality is whatever it is: whether I come out of it hurt or happy is unimportant to SCO, IBM, Linux and just about anyone reading this.
"one might think if your main supplier began to engage in behavior that made it difficult to sell the product being supplied, that you would move to limit the impact that supplier has on your business"
Chuckle:-)
SELLING SCO product has never been an important part of my business. I sell very little, and almost all of that is upgrades. My business is support and troubleshooting: most of my customers were sold their systems by someone else.
I think you'll find very few (if any) SCO resellers who would be seriously hurt by that ship sinking.
First: realize that when a reporter quotes, he picks and chooses sentences he likes. There were an awful lot of other sentences between those you saw.
What I meant by "They don't necessarily know whether they have SCO or Linux" is that neither one has any importance to them: their concern with computers is strictly at the application level. They don't know about this stuff. Yes, I am generalizing: of course some DO care. But most have other concerns, and computer OS wars are far down on the list.
As to my obligations, I have all of my clients on my mailing list and do refer them to articles about this - but I know that most don't read them, because, again, this is of no interest. More than one owner has asked that I redirect the email to someone lower in the organization: they are not interested in this computer gobblygook.
The ones that DO know about this aren't going out of their way looking to license Linux from SCO. The necessity may never arrive, so why put out money? Certainly if legal action were threatened, they'd react, either by paying it (after all, it's a very small amount of money) or by replacing the Linux with something else: which would have no emotional component; their only concern would be will the apps continue to function.
If I may though: I'm not even a SCO enthusiast. A good part of my income has come from SCO systems, but that was only partly due to enthusiasm, and the enthusiasm is for Unix, not SCO particularly. There just happen to be a LOT of small businesses running SCO, so it's a good place to be a consultant.
But I also do a lot of Linux work, and if I'm enthusiastic about anything at all, it would have to be Mac OS X. But even that is mostly again just enthusiasm for Unix.
And yes, I'm saddened and concerned by this mess. I don't particularly care what happens to SCO, although I do know people who work there and I care about them. I care about the customers who USE SCO, and I worry very much about the potential for damage to Linux from this suit.
And no, I don't run any Microsoft. My wife does, poor thing:-)
"I think that anyone who has any clue about the SCO case knows what OS they are running".
That's the point: They DON'T have a clue about this case. These people don't read slashdot, wouldn't know a newsgroup if they fell into one, and while they probably have HEARD of Linux, most don't have any real concept of what it is.
Actually, I'd owe $1,398.00, because I do have two Linux servers here in my office. I'd convert them to BSD if I thought there was any chance I'd really have to pay that.
Well, I don't know what percentage they represent, but I can tell you that they are a true cross-section. I'm not a vertical market reseller, so my client base covers a lot of ground.
I don't think most small business know much about their computer systems. I don't think they read any of the things we read, so would have no reason to notice this lawsuit.
It's not ignorance, and I am NOT calling them "stupid": they have other concerns. Computers are just tools that they use. Do you know who made the carburetor in your car? How about the gas tank? Your mechanic probably does, but most of us don't care, and most small businesses don't either.
Now VERY small business, and larger business are a different story, of course. The very small business usually needs to be more intimate with their computers, and the larger business has more reason to be concerned with them.
A couple of my clients read here regularly. Of course THEY know what OSes they are running..
I don't like what they are doing even if IBM has done what they claim. To call me a SCO reseller is factual, though if I were depending on that for income I'd be pretty damn hungry right now.
Most "SCO Resellers" like me have been actively involved with Linux, BSD etc. for some time now.
Although the SCO Haters regularly arrrive in the SCO newsgroups trying to bait us, they quickly find that most of us also unhappy about this mess.
I personally don't buy the wilder conspiracy theories, and suspect that SCO management honestly thinks they have been wronged, but THAT'S JUST AN OPINION. The conspiracy folks could be right, SCO could be right, and unlikely as it might be, even I could be right.
Slashdot Mirror
So they want to collect data, and if you want to run the beta, that's what you have to put up with. Understandable, but utterly stupid.
The reason it is stupid is that they are coming into a market already dominated by someone else. If they were coming in with a product that out-featured Parallels, having a temporarily crippled beta would be acceptable, but they haven't done that.
I think VMware isn't accustomed to being the underdog. In that position, you need to offer more.
I'm sure VMware will overtake Parallels: they have the resources, the experience and the user base on other platforms. But this is a lousy way to start.
"- Fusion handles Networking much better than Parallels. E.g. my cisco VPN works out of the box in shared mode. I never got it to work with Parallels, athough they claim to support it."
Funny - my experience was exactly the opposite. In fact, I've yet to have networking work at all for any Fusion machine I've installed or downloaded, while I never had any issue with Parallels networking.
That said, I'm sure Fusion will eventually exceed Parallels - but this beta doesn't even come close.
I'm hoping that possession of this gene controls something really important, but that we don't find out until the racists have claimed it as their "proof". Then the announcement comes: this gene causes substandard IQ's, small penises.. something good like that :-)
Well, the real issue is whether a search engine should have given that top billing, and I'd say no, it shouldn't have. It is a moderately popular page (12,000+ page views in its life so far), so it should probably appear somewhere north of hit number 43 gazillion, but I don't think it should ever pop up as number one.. except for specific phrases, of course.
I edited that date out, btw : it really isn't important to the page and as you noted, could confuse people.
But that's not a "blog page", and even if it were, comments still belong at the bottom, I think. Some like to put an "updated" date at the top of the page, bit I don't see the point of that and anyway it's nothing to do with this discussion of search engines.
Amazon has made a bad mistake, I think..
I don't know why you say that first link is not relevant. I wrote it, and it IS political commentary on the difference between Linux and Windows. As to up to date, that article has comments as recent as April of this year, so it is "up to date" in that sense.
:-)
The article itself is a little out of date in that Linux has improved since 2001, but Windows has not (at least for the points I made there about being able to do difficult tasks), so the article still has validity.
But.. like you, I prefer Google search results any day
If I have an OS that lets me easily install and run other OSes, and I have very fast internet, and lots of vm and vdisk, and you write something cool in YourVeryOwnOS, I'll download the whole thing. All it has to be is quick and easy.. and I don't necessarily even care about the neato features that made YVOO appealing to you, as long as the app you wrote for it does something I want or need.
I don't think of bad spellers as less intelligent; some quite intelligent people just cannot spell.
It's perhaps less excusable with computer spell checking so easily available, but my real objection is that it impairs my reading speed: my brain recognizes the patterns of correctly spelled words but can come to a grinding halt when it scans some extreme aberration.
I don't like having to slow down.. but it does make me wonder: are poor spellers also slow readers?
Gravity extremely well understood? Yeah, right.
Nor is it billiard ball physics: do you remember that part of the reason for doing this is to find out more about the makeup and structure? Do you know its center of mass, for instance? And have you forgotten that there are zillions of other things zipping around out there?
But as I said, it probably is insignificant and if it isn't, then there's so much confusion associated that it doesn't matter. It's still hubris to pretend that you have any real knowledge of what the results will be.
The point wasn't that you could experience turbulence. The point is that there are a lot of things we really don't understand well. Turbulence is one of those things, and gravity is another.
It probably is insignificant. And if it isn't, an Earth threatening result from being wrong is surely only one possibility of many billions. But I still dislike the hubris of scientists pretending they really understand physics, gravity, etc. Maybe soon, but sure not now.
"You would need much heavier (or faster) probe to change comet's path significantly."
Yeah. So they say. It's "insignificant". And yet I go other places where I read about a butterfly in Mexico affecting New England weather, about how turbulence is poorly understood and often unexpected results occur.. but, sure, it's all perfectly safe.
Actually, there are still quite a few SCO users left. Most of those that aren't completely ignorant (though there are those) are either "stuck" because their app doesn't run on anything but SCO or because while they could switch to Linux, relicensing costs for their app are too high or redevelopment is too difficult.
I have been involved in quite a few switchovers for former SCO clients, and not all were particularly smooth, though all have been succesful. It's the stupid little stuff that bites you - slight syntax differences in shell scripts, path differences, that kind of thing. The easiest are the ones where all they have is one app and don't use it for anything else, but even those can have little gotchas.
I find that it's easiest to persuade a switch when the hardware and OS plainly have to be upgraded anyway, but I do constantly warn the SCO users that they need to be prepared to switch even if they don't want to - the funny thing is that those who take that advice and put up a Linux box "just for testing" have ended up switching more quickly than they or I thought they would.
Other folks are mired more deeply and would have to buy entirely new application software to move off SCO. Often these are people with marginal businesses or tight profit margins; they didn't move to better software years ago because they couldn't afford to. So they are very, very stuck: the cost of a switch is more than they could bear.
I suppose somewhere there may be some die hard person who really thinks they should stay with SCO because it's "better". I doubt there are many of those left, but once in a while I do hear someone wistfully comment on how "reliable" their SCO has been. But even those folks seem to understand that it's time to move on..
Interestingly, one of the holdouts who as recently as 90 days ago insisted on sticking it out called me this morning to discuss planning a transition. He *could* do Windows, but is adamantly opposed, so it will be Linux. One more down, but still plenty to go.
Well, sure - I'd rather they installed Linux or bought a Mac, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it? If they are going to insist upon Windows (as most of them do), it often makes more sense to buy new than mess around with a piece of old, very broken junk.
I had this just last night: a friend called, his five year old Windows ME machine is doing BSOD's and is infected with viri that his Norton can't kill. I suggested he buy new. He said "I'm so sick of all this virus and spam crap. What should I do?"
I took a deep breath. "Don't say Mac!", he said. I took another breath. "Don't say Linux either", he said.
"So what do you want me to say?", I asked. "Buy a new machine with XP and all the virus and spyware software you want, you are still going to fight this stuff every day. But you want Windows so I can't tell you anything else.."
So that's what he bought. What can you do? They are scared to death of Linux, Macs are "too expensive" (they aren't) and that's the way it is. I do what I can, but you can't stop the tide.
Perhaps so. But the transfer for a Windows machine is simple with XP's File and Settings Transfer Wizard, and if the tech support person has any morals at all, they will advise the customer not to throw away money.
When someone with a badly infected or otherwise flaky machine asks me to "look at it", if it's more than a couple of years old, I always advise them that we could easily eat up the cost of a new machine and they will still be left with an old piece of near junk when we are done.
With most folks, I can tell them how to use the F&ST wizard by themselves by referring them to a web page that walks them through it. They don't waste money, they get a brand new machine, and then they or I can wipe the old box clean, reinstall, and perhaps recycle it to someone else in the company or family.
I like to walk in whistling "If I only had a brain" from the Wizard of OZ. I find that sets the right expectations.
Dressing for success helps too: I prefer jeans and a T-Shirt in the summer, and whatever keeps me warm in the winter. The suits really respect someone who avoids their dress code. Or else it upsets them. Either way, I'm happy.
I also refuse to wear a watch. If asked why, I explain that it's because I bill by the hour. Amazingly, no one ever even seems confused by that answer.
And no, I'm really not joking about any of this. Life is way too short to put up with any situation you don't like. I "fire" clients every year because they are painful to work with, too demanding, disrespectful..
I'm there to perform some service. I don't expect my butt kissed, but I won't put up with nastiness or pure stupidity either. There are too many good clients out there.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not MK itself is a spamtool, was it really smart to post the steps that led to resolution? Nothing really forced this person to stop his actions; it was just threats with no guaranteed teeth, as the posting now explains to him. So why wouldn't he now just put the site back up, knowing that the threat was potentially empty?
Maybe the Pak site would have objected to his forged email, but maybe they don't care a bit - the article certainly makes it sound like Nigel was about to give up in frustration. Now the copycat site knows that..
Ah but wait: I AM concerned about my business being hurt by SCO's actions. Not the SCO business particularly, but the Linux business.
Actually, if SCO went out of business (and I really, really doubt that - I know that won't be a popular opinion here, but it is my feeling), it would be good for me: having decades of experience in SCO, Sun and Linux puts me in a good position to profit from folks who would need to move to other platforms.
However, I don't particularly WANT that: I don't like earning money from misery. I'll take the work, of course, but I'd rather earn my keep doing useful things.
But if Linux goes down, that could seriously damage all Unix, and the Microsoft war machine will just keep on rolling unimpeded. That's not good for me, as I detest Microsoft work and would be very mierable if forced into it. I can do it: I have an (outdated) MCSE, but I would be bitter and unhappy.
But.. and here's the cavalier part you don't grok: if SCO really does have a case against IBM, I have to agree that they have a right to sue and recover damages EVEN IF THAT HURTS ME. I wish they were smarter, because I think this can only hurt them as well, but the cookie crumbles as it will, and if it crumbles against me, I have to live with it. I think that's just unfortunate reality: shit happens, and then you die.
From my own selfish point of few, I would hope that SCO has nothing, that Linux and Open Source are entirely vindicated and emerge from this stronger than ever. I also hope to win the lottery tomorrow night - either one will be just fine with me.
but reality is whatever it is: whether I come out of it hurt or happy is unimportant to SCO, IBM, Linux and just about anyone reading this.
"one might think if your main supplier began to engage in behavior that made it difficult to sell the product being supplied, that you would move to limit the impact that supplier has on your business"
:-)
Chuckle
SELLING SCO product has never been an important part of my business. I sell very little, and almost all of that is upgrades. My business is support and troubleshooting: most of my customers were sold their systems by someone else.
I think you'll find very few (if any) SCO resellers who would be seriously hurt by that ship sinking.
Of course not.
This isn't high school. This is business.
It doesn't do me any good to punish my customers by dumping SCO. For whatever reaon, these people want or need to continue running SCO.
If they WANT me to move them to another platform, fine. Otherwise, I'm not going to refuse their requests.
First: realize that when a reporter quotes, he picks and chooses sentences he likes. There were an awful lot of other sentences between those you saw.
What I meant by "They don't necessarily know whether they have SCO or Linux" is that neither one has any importance to them: their concern with computers is strictly at the application level. They don't know about this stuff. Yes, I am generalizing: of course some DO care. But most have other concerns, and computer OS wars are far down on the list.
As to my obligations, I have all of my clients on my mailing list and do refer them to articles about this - but I know that most don't read them, because, again, this is of no interest. More than one owner has asked that I redirect the email to someone lower in the organization: they are not interested in this computer gobblygook.
The ones that DO know about this aren't going out of their way looking to license Linux from SCO. The necessity may never arrive, so why put out money? Certainly if legal action were threatened, they'd react, either by paying it (after all, it's a very small amount of money) or by replacing the Linux with something else: which would have no emotional component; their only concern would be will the apps continue to function.
I don't have any employees. I did once, but discovered that I am a really bad manager, so returned to being just me.
But I really don't understand your comment. Did you understand that my concern is the potential for damage to Linux? That's what I'm worried about.
Thank you for the kind words.
:-)
If I may though: I'm not even a SCO enthusiast. A good part of my income has come from SCO systems, but that was only partly due to enthusiasm, and the enthusiasm is for Unix, not SCO particularly. There just happen to be a LOT of small businesses running SCO, so it's a good place to be a consultant.
But I also do a lot of Linux work, and if I'm enthusiastic about anything at all, it would have to be Mac OS X. But even that is mostly again just enthusiasm for Unix.
And yes, I'm saddened and concerned by this mess. I don't particularly care what happens to SCO, although I do know people who work there and I care about them. I care about the customers who USE SCO, and I worry very much about the potential for damage to Linux from this suit.
And no, I don't run any Microsoft. My wife does, poor thing
"I think that anyone who has any clue about the SCO case knows what OS they are running".
That's the point: They DON'T have a clue about this case. These people don't read slashdot, wouldn't know a newsgroup if they fell into one, and while they probably have HEARD of Linux, most don't have any real concept of what it is.
Actually, I'd owe $1,398.00, because I do have two Linux servers here in my office. I'd convert them to BSD if I thought there was any chance I'd really have to pay that.
Personally, I use Mac OS X for "my" machine.
Well, I don't know what percentage they represent, but I can tell you that they are a true cross-section. I'm not a vertical market reseller, so my client base covers a lot of ground.
I don't think most small business know much about their computer systems. I don't think they read any of the things we read, so would have no reason to notice this lawsuit.
It's not ignorance, and I am NOT calling them "stupid": they have other concerns. Computers are just tools that they use. Do you know who made the carburetor in your car? How about the gas tank? Your mechanic probably does, but most of us don't care, and most small businesses don't either.
Now VERY small business, and larger business are a different story, of course. The very small business usually needs to be more intimate with their computers, and the larger business has more reason to be concerned with them.
A couple of my clients read here regularly. Of course THEY know what OSes they are running..
I'm not a SCO apologist.
I don't like what they are doing even if IBM has done what they claim. To call me a SCO reseller is factual, though if I were depending on that for income I'd be pretty damn hungry right now.
Most "SCO Resellers" like me have been actively involved with Linux, BSD etc. for some time now.
Although the SCO Haters regularly arrrive in the SCO newsgroups trying to bait us, they quickly find that most of us also unhappy about this mess.
I personally don't buy the wilder conspiracy theories, and suspect that SCO management honestly thinks they have been wronged, but THAT'S JUST AN OPINION. The conspiracy folks could be right, SCO could be right, and unlikely as it might be, even I could be right.