Someone give him a point for the good, relevent article. One quote did bother me tho...
N-series PCs will cost the same as PCs that ship with Windows, a Dell representative said.
Which means they are technically charging you MORE for the computer, since they do not incur the cost of the Microsoft license. Or you can look at is as: "We charge you the same for FreeDOS as we do for Windows", which is kinda expensive for FreeDOS (I have installed it, its a mediocre DOS 3.3 clone by their own admission).
This does mean bigger profits for Dell, but it doesn't represent a better value for customers.
I just purchased four of the $199 computers from Walmart.com about 6 weeks ago. 3 were 1400 Durons, 1 was a 1600 (all were supposed to be 1400, got a bonus). 30gb drives, (maxtor i think), onboard NIC and audio, CD, no floppy, almost adequate mouse/speakers/keyboard, good drivers on the CD, good packaging, 128MB RAM, $15 each to ship.
All things considered, I am very happy with them. I installed 98 on two of them (fun to have to actually PAY for something that old.) and dual booted another with RH9 and 98. The other is running ME. Two on a small/medium network, two on their own network. Yes, graphics would suck for 3d since its 8mb shared ram, but for regular business apps and web duty, they do just fine. I did bump the ram up to 256 (pc133) and install a floppy in one, but the boxes are decent, cheap mid towers.
The version of Lindows that comes with it rather sux0rs, however. I was expecting to get to download SOMETHING, but it appears they have it locked in where you either pay, or try to manually install gcc and build everything. dont find any rpms for it without paying. I was disappointed since I was interested in Lindows as a possible light weight OS for an office, even if for pay. This is not it.
I believe very few would "move over to the BSD". Stop spreading the meme. BSD license is not good, BSD licensed things lets others steal your work and sell it without you ever getting anything, and that's not good. With the GPL you at least get any changes back (i.e. the functionality).
You may not like the BSD license, but when someone uses BSD code for other projects, its NOT stealing. It complying with the license. If Microsoft wants to release a copy of BSD as Windows 2004, and keep the code secret, they legally can, as the license allows it.
Please go spread your FUD elsewhere. I prefer the GPL myself, but you GPL nazis are getting old. The fact is, the BSD license has more freedom than the GPL license, including the freedom to NOT share the code back. Oh yea, and as you probably know, you only get the changes back with GPL IF they distribute the binaries.
Someone PLEASE mod the parent up. Its too good a comment to stay at 0, where lots of folks won't see it. He raises a very good point, and more imporantly, raises a very interesting issue about...
It is possible that SCO has met this requirement of Ammendment #2 and the courts will honour their request for ownership of copyrights.
SCO should get a hold on the IBM case only after SCO has shown what was "stolen" and the contracts have been found to support SCO's case and the "stolen" material is part of the Novell case.
You argue the case well. I had not thought of that angle until your reply. This is the "even if they DO own it, we did nothing illegal" defense, and is applicable.
But on a positive note, the guy with that page has made several links with the term: litigious bastards that link directly to SCO. Granted, this isn't the same as putting litigious bastards in, and getting straight to sco, but its a pretty fast and decent first step. since that person is linking the term directly to sco, i would hope that would eventually help reach our shared goal.
then again, just the idea of having that shared goal kinda seems like we might have too much time to spare;)
I know this is totally OT, so it's posted without the karma bonus, but your sig made me go google the term, litigious bastards. We were talking about just that less than two weeks ago, about everyone linking the term with sco.com, and wondering if we could googleflood the reference to sco.
Holy shit, it worked! Nothing but pages with sco links, and lots of slashdot references! Page after page!
Just wanted to update that issue, since you had the sig going. Now back to the normal SCO bashing....
Yes. That would be us here on earth. My guess is a control group of over 6 million should suffice.
How would you perform a controlled research experiment on the effects of Mars.
By comparing changes in physiology to what we see in similar people here on earth.
That would be like sending some seventy something year old guy up on a single shuttle mision and... ooops, did that and it was a waste of time too.
Except we learned a senior citizen has some capabilities and some limitations under the stress, which helps us determine how old is "too old" to send to Mars.
Beyond this, exactly what would the benefit of people on Mars be to civilization????
Exotic minerals. Discovering different forms of life, which could give us better understanding of our form of life, or help find cures for what ails us. For the sake of exploration itself. Lots of things.
Every time space missions our brought up, advocates are very quick to point to the few scurrilous benefits to "society". What they rarely point out is that they really don't care about any benefits to society. They just think space travel is cool and want to do it.
Incorrect. Some do, some don't, same as in any large group. But the benefits in computer technology alone were worth the investment in the space program so far.
I might as rob someone of gold and claim that I saved them orthopedic problems because they no longer have to carry it.
Even you know how flawed that analogy is. Living in a democracy means when the majority wants something that the minority does want, the majority rules as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the minority. This does not infringe.
Its one thing to be against Mars exploration, of think the risks outweigh the rewards, but to say that no research can be accomplished, and no gains would be made, is beyond short sighted. Your arguement would be stronger if it was not so obviously biased and flawed in this respect.
Re:site is slashdotted, here's the 1st page
on
BSD For Linux Users
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'm sure Darl McBride is going to quote you quite liberally. Thank you very much for HARMING both communities.
Yea, because everyone knows that an opinion posted on slashdot is hard evidence in any court of law.
Do you have any idea how silly what you said sounds? They are too busy asking IBM for a copy of AIX so they can compare code.
Another option he has is to offer them a copy of the work under a different license. I would not include this in the first letter, since it would look like a blatant attempt at extorting money (which it isn't).
Just like MySQL and others, you can dual license the code. If he is willing to do this, he can BSD them a copy for a compensating sum of $, that would allow them the IP they current have but not any future IP that goes into the program.
I know some look down at this method, but its a win-win. The company get to use good code. The public gets the same good code, Free, under the GPL. The company isn't likely to contribute that much to the code if they released changes anyway (after all, they had to steal it to start their project...) and the author gets financial compensation which pays the bills. He doesn't get rich (he won't anyway, it doesn't work that way usually) but he will get fair value for the work, and he still owns all rights.
Heck, how about nicking the *^a%$# patent examiner who gave them the patent!? AFAIK, they didn't just aply for the patent, they actually got it. If you ask me, somebody at the PTO should be contributing to the unemployment statistics for that.
Most people would see that as harsh, uncaring, unrealistic or unfair. I, however, would agree with you. If your or I, in the non-bureaucratic world, can get fired or sued for making a mistake that causes millions in damages to others, then we should hold government workers to a similar standard of accountability.
Wish I had a mod point for you. I knew this existed, although I thought it was older than this. You are absolutely correct, this RFC is much more descriptive of the process than the actual patent is, and describes in better detail the exact same contents of the patent, 22 YEARS before the patent was applied for.
It explicitly covers email addresses for subdomains, and even how some older software (pre-87) will break with it. (Thus the Request For Comment, to set a standard).
There needs to be some kind of punitive damage for people who attempt to patent things that are not only covered by prior art, but are in the Public Domain, for over 20 years before the application.
But wouldn't it be funny if through careful analysis and testimony IBM is able to prove that the engineers working on AIX actually copied code from the Linux source code instead of Vice versa? Thus require AIX to be open sourced in compliance with the GPL.
Not exactly. If (very hypothetical now) IBM were to accidently use GPL code in AIX, they would not be forced to open source AIX. That would be one option. Recalling all versions and replacing all versions with non infringing code would be another option. Refusing to do anything and risk getting sued by whomever owns the copyright for that particular code is another.
And there is always the possibility that the GPL code was released under different license as well, such as BSD. Or the author released all copyrights, and turned it over to the Public Domain. Wo they wouldn't have to do anything, as long as they complied with one of the license the code was released in, or nothing at all if it was PD. Dual licensing is pretty common. (PD can't be dual, I know that.)
It's a common misconception that if a company includes GPL code in their software, they MUST open their source. They have to do SOMETHING to comply, but opening their source is just one option.
They can try. And file enough forms and petitions and posture alot, which doesn't help the court case, but it does wonders for the stock price. They can get lawyers much smarter than you and I to fill 400 miles of paperwork, make different claims in public than you do in your court papers, and if the geeks can see through it, fine. As long as the suits can't, you might collect a bit of cash as you are burning the bridge behind you.
You might even get someone to buy you (just to shut you up) or sell some stock when the price jumps over the FUD you are spewing. Either way, you make more money that if you just quietly die as a company. As long as there is plausible deniability for whomever the puppet master is, its the most profitable way to go out of business, it would appear.
Its kinda like a pet store having a going out of business sale where they tell you that if you don't buy the puppy, they are going to shoot it with a gun. Yea, its shitty, but you buy the puppy because if they are crazy enough to say that, they may be crazy enough to do it.
And they reach their goal, selling all the puppies.
The payments to Novell are from licensees at the time of the transfer agreement. SCO gets 100% of new license revenue, which would include licensing of Linux.
Excellent point and simply put. Wish I had a mod point for you.
I think his main point, and I would agree, is that indemnification is only a short term solution to a short term problem. Once all this played out with SCO in court, indemnification will not be needed. If a company has enough faith that SCO is wrong, it is worth the risk to them for "insurance" policy to gain new customers. If the support contract isn't a good value by itself, then the temporary freebee of an indemnification clause will make little difference in their sales.
Obviously to any group that is not profit group distributing Linux (Debian, etc.) indemnification is not possible, but most people who use Debian aren't buying support contracts from anyone, at any price. Most Debian (or Gentoo, or Slackware...) users are more aware of the problem, and feel confident that SCO can't win because they have no claim. Its also a different culture, with a bigger focus on "free as in speech/beer", rather than "how will this generate profits and create jobs to grow the business" concerns.
Corporate users are different because decisions are made by committee, not a single hacker, and done for the benefit of shareholders, employees, managers and customers. They have entire departments for IT, and they are more interested in running stable, reliable, supported networks than cutting edge. The needs, culture and expectations are just different.
I have used RedHat for several years, and paid for the support, on a few servers. Their recent policies are forcing me to consider changing vendors. Indemnification alone would not get me to switch, but I can see how it is a benefit on alongside SuSe, a very popular corporate distro, and one that I am considering. If its "icing on the cake" and SuSe puts out the best _product_, and they are honest in how they market indemnification, then I see this as a good move to push Linux in the mainstream, by removing barriers in the marketplace, ie: concern over the future of Linux.
I would agree. Its ironic. Everyone is talking roses about them because even Novell says they are smoking crack. Then they put their money where their mouth is and offers protection for their customers (they can't offer protection for NON customers, there is no contract to protect, duh).
And now everyone is comparing them to MS.
It doesn't strengthen SCOs case, it demonstrates that SCO doesn't have one. They just called SCO's bluff because they can, for free. Indemnifying customers of legal action against SCO is like offering life insurance for your pet rock: There is little fear you will ever need to exercise the right and collect on it.
If they make some money, too, great. Since they just invested $210 million in open source software, I hope they make a wad.
You might also add an image named "litigious-bastards.jpg" that is a copy of their logo with 3 significant changes or for parody purposes (legal reasons), with an alt tag of "litigious bastards" and make the image itself a link
<a href="http://www.sco.com" title="The SCO Group - litigious bastards">litigious bastards</a><br><a href="http://www.sco.com" title="The SCO Group - litigious bastards"><img src="path/litigious-bastards.jpg" alt="litigious bastards"></a>
replacing "path" with the actual path. I actually had to pay money to learn that one. Not perfect, but it helps, and then it shows up when you google for images.
Not intended to be a troll, but why do people bother commenting that they don't like seeing SCO stories? I mean, if I don't like potato peelers, I don't hang out in the kitchen utensils aisle and reminding the customers of my beliefs.
Its very misleading. They don't really mean to say "I hate all these SCO stories". What they really mean to say is "I love to bitch about something, and the SCO stories are a great bandwagon to jump on".
I see all kinds of stories that are meaningless to me. As a matter of fact, MOST of the stories on slashdot are not of interest to me, but they are to others, and thats the idea, to appeal to a broad audience.
The SCO situation is one of the more important issues to ever face Linux, GPL and Open Source in general. Ever. While most of us have faith that the courts will see the light, we know that we can't take this for granted. (ie: OJ) This will hopefully answer lots of legal questions on Linux, and in the end, be to the benefit of Linux and the GPL. Even the people bitching know this.
My conclusion is very simple: They just want to bitch, and like many other llamas, they are just following yet more llamas, and using SCO stories as a target for their bitching. Since it takes 100x more effort to post and complain than to ignore, this is obvious.
What's the matter, do you think Best Buy's prices are too high? Could their prices be reasonably explained by the fact that if you ask a salesperson a question he/she responds immediately rather than a couple days later as at Internet stores? That you can walk in and out with your purchase in a matter of minutes? That you can try everything out before buying? That you can take back anything except software it turns out you didn't like it for some reason
No I think Best Buy is misleading in their advertising, inept in their support, and their salespersons lie. This is my experience. Their prices are usually somewhat reasonable. My experience with Internet stores has been better service, primarily since I don't buy from internet only stores, and only from those that have physical stores. And I have yet to be able to try much before I buy at Best Buy. Usually, the salesperson will explain that he doesn't have the key, batteries, it requires a supervisor, etc. I have tried many times, and frankly, I just don't buy from them anymore. I did use my instore credit to buy what was then a new Nikon 990, but I didn't get to try it before I bought it, either.
If none of those reasons fly with you, consider that maybe their prices are higher because of dishonest, predatory behavior by people like you.
Not only was my behavior NOT predatory, but the extended warranty was transferable, and the terms of the warranty said exact replacement or store credit, which I recieved.
Seems to me that I demanded they honor their own warranty, and for once, they did, except I had to talk to several people and talk loud to get them to do it. If there were as honorable as you seem to think they are, they would have given me store credit immediately instead of giving me the run around hoping I would just give in.
So pardon me if I knock you off your high horse, since I did nothing dishonest. The problem is that Best Buy is the one usually dishonest, and its rare that someone can actually get them to honor their own warranties, to the letter.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone give him a point for the good, relevent article. One quote did bother me tho...
N-series PCs will cost the same as PCs that ship with Windows, a Dell representative said.
Which means they are technically charging you MORE for the computer, since they do not incur the cost of the Microsoft license. Or you can look at is as: "We charge you the same for FreeDOS as we do for Windows", which is kinda expensive for FreeDOS (I have installed it, its a mediocre DOS 3.3 clone by their own admission).
This does mean bigger profits for Dell, but it doesn't represent a better value for customers.
I just purchased four of the $199 computers from Walmart.com about 6 weeks ago. 3 were 1400 Durons, 1 was a 1600 (all were supposed to be 1400, got a bonus). 30gb drives, (maxtor i think), onboard NIC and audio, CD, no floppy, almost adequate mouse/speakers/keyboard, good drivers on the CD, good packaging, 128MB RAM, $15 each to ship.
All things considered, I am very happy with them. I installed 98 on two of them (fun to have to actually PAY for something that old.) and dual booted another with RH9 and 98. The other is running ME. Two on a small/medium network, two on their own network. Yes, graphics would suck for 3d since its 8mb shared ram, but for regular business apps and web duty, they do just fine. I did bump the ram up to 256 (pc133) and install a floppy in one, but the boxes are decent, cheap mid towers.
The version of Lindows that comes with it rather sux0rs, however. I was expecting to get to download SOMETHING, but it appears they have it locked in where you either pay, or try to manually install gcc and build everything. dont find any rpms for it without paying. I was disappointed since I was interested in Lindows as a possible light weight OS for an office, even if for pay. This is not it.
I believe very few would "move over to the BSD". Stop spreading the meme. BSD license is not good, BSD licensed things lets others steal your work and sell it without you ever getting anything, and that's not good. With the GPL you at least get any changes back (i.e. the functionality).
You may not like the BSD license, but when someone uses BSD code for other projects, its NOT stealing. It complying with the license. If Microsoft wants to release a copy of BSD as Windows 2004, and keep the code secret, they legally can, as the license allows it.
Please go spread your FUD elsewhere. I prefer the GPL myself, but you GPL nazis are getting old. The fact is, the BSD license has more freedom than the GPL license, including the freedom to NOT share the code back. Oh yea, and as you probably know, you only get the changes back with GPL IF they distribute the binaries.
that word is also in wordnet, which is only an 'apt-get install' away (for example, with 'dict' to query it).
;)
Except I'm on my XP laptop. I have cygwin installed, but I don't think it will work
Fuck. You, too, made me spill some real nice calvados.
;)
Fuck. You couldn't have just said "French apple brandy" and saved me the trip to dictionary.com?
Someone PLEASE mod the parent up. Its too good a comment to stay at 0, where lots of folks won't see it. He raises a very good point, and more imporantly, raises a very interesting issue about...
It is possible that SCO has met this requirement of Ammendment #2 and the courts will honour their request for ownership of copyrights.
SCO should get a hold on the IBM case only after SCO has shown what was "stolen" and the contracts have been found to support SCO's case and the "stolen" material is part of the Novell case.
You argue the case well. I had not thought of that angle until your reply. This is the "even if they DO own it, we did nothing illegal" defense, and is applicable.
But on a positive note, the guy with that page has made several links with the term: litigious bastards that link directly to SCO. Granted, this isn't the same as putting litigious bastards in, and getting straight to sco, but its a pretty fast and decent first step. since that person is linking the term directly to sco, i would hope that would eventually help reach our shared goal.
;)
then again, just the idea of having that shared goal kinda seems like we might have too much time to spare
I know this is totally OT, so it's posted without the karma bonus, but your sig made me go google the term, litigious bastards. We were talking about just that less than two weeks ago, about everyone linking the term with sco.com, and wondering if we could googleflood the reference to sco.
Holy shit, it worked! Nothing but pages with sco links, and lots of slashdot references! Page after page!
Just wanted to update that issue, since you had the sig going. Now back to the normal SCO bashing....
I'm shocked its not a Dutch auction. 6 bids so far.
If you do research, you need control subjects.
... ooops, did that and it was a waste of time too.
Yes. That would be us here on earth. My guess is a control group of over 6 million should suffice.
How would you perform a controlled research experiment on the effects of Mars.
By comparing changes in physiology to what we see in similar people here on earth.
That would be like sending some seventy something year old guy up on a single shuttle mision and
Except we learned a senior citizen has some capabilities and some limitations under the stress, which helps us determine how old is "too old" to send to Mars.
Beyond this, exactly what would the benefit of people on Mars be to civilization????
Exotic minerals. Discovering different forms of life, which could give us better understanding of our form of life, or help find cures for what ails us. For the sake of exploration itself. Lots of things.
Every time space missions our brought up, advocates are very quick to point to the few scurrilous benefits to "society". What they rarely point out is that they really don't care about any benefits to society. They just think space travel is cool and want to do it.
Incorrect. Some do, some don't, same as in any large group. But the benefits in computer technology alone were worth the investment in the space program so far.
I might as rob someone of gold and claim that I saved them orthopedic problems because they no longer have to carry it.
Even you know how flawed that analogy is. Living in a democracy means when the majority wants something that the minority does want, the majority rules as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the minority. This does not infringe.
Its one thing to be against Mars exploration, of think the risks outweigh the rewards, but to say that no research can be accomplished, and no gains would be made, is beyond short sighted. Your arguement would be stronger if it was not so obviously biased and flawed in this respect.
I'm sure Darl McBride is going to quote you quite liberally. Thank you very much for HARMING both communities.
Yea, because everyone knows that an opinion posted on slashdot is hard evidence in any court of law.
Do you have any idea how silly what you said sounds? They are too busy asking IBM for a copy of AIX so they can compare code.
The only time more than 12 people read the article is if it concerns, Natalie Portman, hot grits, Legos, SCO, Soviet jokes, All Your Bases........
Another option he has is to offer them a copy of the work under a different license. I would not include this in the first letter, since it would look like a blatant attempt at extorting money (which it isn't).
Just like MySQL and others, you can dual license the code. If he is willing to do this, he can BSD them a copy for a compensating sum of $, that would allow them the IP they current have but not any future IP that goes into the program.
I know some look down at this method, but its a win-win. The company get to use good code. The public gets the same good code, Free, under the GPL. The company isn't likely to contribute that much to the code if they released changes anyway (after all, they had to steal it to start their project...) and the author gets financial compensation which pays the bills. He doesn't get rich (he won't anyway, it doesn't work that way usually) but he will get fair value for the work, and he still owns all rights.
That link is already in the /. article?
;)
Yes. The slashdot article. 127 replys to the article, 12 people read it. After all, this IS slashdot, would you expect anything different?
Heck, how about nicking the *^a%$# patent examiner who gave them the patent!? AFAIK, they didn't just aply for the patent, they actually got it. If you ask me, somebody at the PTO should be contributing to the unemployment statistics for that.
Most people would see that as harsh, uncaring, unrealistic or unfair. I, however, would agree with you. If your or I, in the non-bureaucratic world, can get fired or sued for making a mistake that causes millions in damages to others, then we should hold government workers to a similar standard of accountability.
Wish I had a mod point for you. I knew this existed, although I thought it was older than this. You are absolutely correct, this RFC is much more descriptive of the process than the actual patent is, and describes in better detail the exact same contents of the patent, 22 YEARS before the patent was applied for.
It explicitly covers email addresses for subdomains, and even how some older software (pre-87) will break with it. (Thus the Request For Comment, to set a standard).
There needs to be some kind of punitive damage for people who attempt to patent things that are not only covered by prior art, but are in the Public Domain, for over 20 years before the application.
But wouldn't it be funny if through careful analysis and testimony IBM is able to prove that the engineers working on AIX actually copied code from the Linux source code instead of Vice versa? Thus require AIX to be open sourced in compliance with the GPL.
Not exactly. If (very hypothetical now) IBM were to accidently use GPL code in AIX, they would not be forced to open source AIX. That would be one option. Recalling all versions and replacing all versions with non infringing code would be another option. Refusing to do anything and risk getting sued by whomever owns the copyright for that particular code is another.
And there is always the possibility that the GPL code was released under different license as well, such as BSD. Or the author released all copyrights, and turned it over to the Public Domain. Wo they wouldn't have to do anything, as long as they complied with one of the license the code was released in, or nothing at all if it was PD. Dual licensing is pretty common. (PD can't be dual, I know that.)
It's a common misconception that if a company includes GPL code in their software, they MUST open their source. They have to do SOMETHING to comply, but opening their source is just one option.
How can...
They can try. And file enough forms and petitions and posture alot, which doesn't help the court case, but it does wonders for the stock price. They can get lawyers much smarter than you and I to fill 400 miles of paperwork, make different claims in public than you do in your court papers, and if the geeks can see through it, fine. As long as the suits can't, you might collect a bit of cash as you are burning the bridge behind you.
You might even get someone to buy you (just to shut you up) or sell some stock when the price jumps over the FUD you are spewing. Either way, you make more money that if you just quietly die as a company. As long as there is plausible deniability for whomever the puppet master is, its the most profitable way to go out of business, it would appear.
Its kinda like a pet store having a going out of business sale where they tell you that if you don't buy the puppy, they are going to shoot it with a gun. Yea, its shitty, but you buy the puppy because if they are crazy enough to say that, they may be crazy enough to do it.
And they reach their goal, selling all the puppies.
The payments to Novell are from licensees at the time of the transfer agreement. SCO gets 100% of new license revenue, which would include licensing of Linux.
Excellent point and simply put. Wish I had a mod point for you.
I think his main point, and I would agree, is that indemnification is only a short term solution to a short term problem. Once all this played out with SCO in court, indemnification will not be needed. If a company has enough faith that SCO is wrong, it is worth the risk to them for "insurance" policy to gain new customers. If the support contract isn't a good value by itself, then the temporary freebee of an indemnification clause will make little difference in their sales.
Obviously to any group that is not profit group distributing Linux (Debian, etc.) indemnification is not possible, but most people who use Debian aren't buying support contracts from anyone, at any price. Most Debian (or Gentoo, or Slackware...) users are more aware of the problem, and feel confident that SCO can't win because they have no claim. Its also a different culture, with a bigger focus on "free as in speech/beer", rather than "how will this generate profits and create jobs to grow the business" concerns.
Corporate users are different because decisions are made by committee, not a single hacker, and done for the benefit of shareholders, employees, managers and customers. They have entire departments for IT, and they are more interested in running stable, reliable, supported networks than cutting edge. The needs, culture and expectations are just different.
I have used RedHat for several years, and paid for the support, on a few servers. Their recent policies are forcing me to consider changing vendors. Indemnification alone would not get me to switch, but I can see how it is a benefit on alongside SuSe, a very popular corporate distro, and one that I am considering. If its "icing on the cake" and SuSe puts out the best _product_, and they are honest in how they market indemnification, then I see this as a good move to push Linux in the mainstream, by removing barriers in the marketplace, ie: concern over the future of Linux.
And you think they bought SuSE because ...?
I would agree. Its ironic. Everyone is talking roses about them because even Novell says they are smoking crack. Then they put their money where their mouth is and offers protection for their customers (they can't offer protection for NON customers, there is no contract to protect, duh).
And now everyone is comparing them to MS.
It doesn't strengthen SCOs case, it demonstrates that SCO doesn't have one. They just called SCO's bluff because they can, for free. Indemnifying customers of legal action against SCO is like offering life insurance for your pet rock: There is little fear you will ever need to exercise the right and collect on it.
If they make some money, too, great. Since they just invested $210 million in open source software, I hope they make a wad.
You might also add an image named "litigious-bastards.jpg" that is a copy of their logo with 3 significant changes or for parody purposes (legal reasons), with an alt tag of "litigious bastards" and make the image itself a link
<a href="http://www.sco.com" title="The SCO Group - litigious bastards">litigious bastards</a><br><a href="http://www.sco.com" title="The SCO Group - litigious bastards"><img src="path/litigious-bastards.jpg" alt="litigious bastards"></a>
replacing "path" with the actual path. I actually had to pay money to learn that one. Not perfect, but it helps, and then it shows up when you google for images.
Not intended to be a troll, but why do people bother commenting that they don't like seeing SCO stories? I mean, if I don't like potato peelers, I don't hang out in the kitchen utensils aisle and reminding the customers of my beliefs.
Its very misleading. They don't really mean to say "I hate all these SCO stories". What they really mean to say is "I love to bitch about something, and the SCO stories are a great bandwagon to jump on".
I see all kinds of stories that are meaningless to me. As a matter of fact, MOST of the stories on slashdot are not of interest to me, but they are to others, and thats the idea, to appeal to a broad audience.
The SCO situation is one of the more important issues to ever face Linux, GPL and Open Source in general. Ever. While most of us have faith that the courts will see the light, we know that we can't take this for granted. (ie: OJ) This will hopefully answer lots of legal questions on Linux, and in the end, be to the benefit of Linux and the GPL. Even the people bitching know this.
My conclusion is very simple: They just want to bitch, and like many other llamas, they are just following yet more llamas, and using SCO stories as a target for their bitching. Since it takes 100x more effort to post and complain than to ignore, this is obvious.
What's the matter, do you think Best Buy's prices are too high? Could their prices be reasonably explained by the fact that if you ask a salesperson a question he/she responds immediately rather than a couple days later as at Internet stores? That you can walk in and out with your purchase in a matter of minutes? That you can try everything out before buying? That you can take back anything except software it turns out you didn't like it for some reason
No I think Best Buy is misleading in their advertising, inept in their support, and their salespersons lie. This is my experience. Their prices are usually somewhat reasonable. My experience with Internet stores has been better service, primarily since I don't buy from internet only stores, and only from those that have physical stores. And I have yet to be able to try much before I buy at Best Buy. Usually, the salesperson will explain that he doesn't have the key, batteries, it requires a supervisor, etc. I have tried many times, and frankly, I just don't buy from them anymore. I did use my instore credit to buy what was then a new Nikon 990, but I didn't get to try it before I bought it, either.
If none of those reasons fly with you, consider that maybe their prices are higher because of dishonest, predatory behavior by people like you.
Not only was my behavior NOT predatory, but the extended warranty was transferable, and the terms of the warranty said exact replacement or store credit, which I recieved.
Seems to me that I demanded they honor their own warranty, and for once, they did, except I had to talk to several people and talk loud to get them to do it. If there were as honorable as you seem to think they are, they would have given me store credit immediately instead of giving me the run around hoping I would just give in.
So pardon me if I knock you off your high horse, since I did nothing dishonest. The problem is that Best Buy is the one usually dishonest, and its rare that someone can actually get them to honor their own warranties, to the letter.