If you were the one hiring the lawyer, who would you rather have? A nice guy who plays nice and fair all the time, or a lawyer who knows every little legal loophole and how to exploit it?
Mu.
In the context of this litigation, I would rather have the one that says "look, you have no case. Find another way to solve your financial problem." Rather than "hey, it doesn't matter if you have no case, just sue them anyway - they'll just settle."
In other words, I would rather have the nice guy who plays fair even though he knows every little legal loophole.
its not entirly walmarts fault [...] Sadly many consumers are fooled into believing they will get a high quality product that will last them many years from walmart.
Uhh, yeah, and where do you suppose they get that idea from?
Make sure there is absolutely no possible grounds for appeal, and then go after SCO for lawyers fees which will be more than their net worth.
No, SCOX will be dead by the time IBM's counterclaims are heard. The Lanham act claims are a slam-dunk, and they are worth more money than SCOX has had in the past few years.
They may even go after the corporate officers personally, who have been profiting from this insane lawsuit.
Not to mention BSF - who have a clause in their contract stating that they get a large slice of any buyout.
IBM's strategy is simple: burn SCOX to the ground, and salt the earth, to prevent another failed company from trying the same thing.
There is still an issue (morally speaking) as to whether it is "piracy".
Not really.
some craniorectally inverted companies have taken out patents on a plethora of genetic sequences, but whether they have any right to do so is another matter altogether.
Considering "it" is not being done by Google, the issue is irrelevant.
Google is monopolizing genetic resources by putting genetic information online for free?
Sounds to me like these guys are a bunch of kooks who are attacking any large company who uses the words "genetic" and "database" in the same sentence.
Google is one of the biggest, so they automatically attack.
Read the page - he believes that he got the problem fixed because he ranted and screamed and threatened. This is mutually exclusive with being a good manager.
you will also note how IBM sends customer complaints to the OpenSSH team.
Ahh, sorry, what?
I read the article, and it said that *ONE* IBM customer was sent to OpenSSH.
It did not say it happens on a regular basis. It did not say whether they were sent there by a manager, a contractor, or a frustrated developer. It did not say what the problem was. It *did* say that it was quoted by one of the biggest asshats in the OSS field today.
Saying the license excuses you from any moral obligations is imho just silly.
Sorry, but what moral obligations does the BSD code impose?
Please show me where, in the the BSD license, it says that you should pay the developers. Show me where it says "we're doing this for free, but we need to eat, and so would appreciate some money."
The people using BSD code are following not only the legal requirements, but the spirit of the BSD license - this means that they are already excused from the "moral" obligations.
costs roughly in line with Linux when you take into account administration/management costs and that MSFT was bending over backwards to meet their needs.
Translation:
Costs are the same, but it costs money to switch, therefore MS is trying to buy their business.
The fact that only the "parked" (read: bare pages with no interactivity and exceptionally low risk) will be changed means that GoDaddy is trying to take them up on it without really taking any risk.
Republicans don't favor less government control by any means.
You do realize who signed the DMCA into law don't you?
So.. your point is that everybody who wasn't involved in enacting *one specific law* (which doesn't mention government size) is automatically for less government control?
Slashdot Mirror
If PayPal wants to act like a bank, they should, well, act like a bank.
That's the problem though - PayPal doesn't want to act like a bank.
Banks have to keep track of the money moving through them.
Banks have to be responsible.
PayPal wants everyone to give them money, with no accountability.
If you were the one hiring the lawyer, who would you rather have? A nice guy who plays nice and fair all the time, or a lawyer who knows every little legal loophole and how to exploit it?
Mu.
In the context of this litigation, I would rather have the one that says "look, you have no case. Find another way to solve your financial problem." Rather than "hey, it doesn't matter if you have no case, just sue them anyway - they'll just settle."
In other words, I would rather have the nice guy who plays fair even though he knows every little legal loophole.
its not entirly walmarts fault [...] Sadly many consumers are fooled into believing they will get a high quality product that will last them many years from walmart.
Uhh, yeah, and where do you suppose they get that idea from?
Didn't Negroponte turn down Jobs when he offered a no cost version of OSX, because it wasn't free software?
But Jobs didn't *pay* him to use it, right?
Isn't that what's being speculated here?
I'll never understand those "running as root is dangerous" people who are talking as if their system was more important than their personal files.
Maybe if you weren't a social pariah, you might understand.
Your belief only works as long as there is only one person using a machine.
As soon as there is one or more other people using it, it falls apart.
And for most people with computers (say a family) there are multiple users using the machine.
SCO's claims have been, and remain, far more complicated than that.
Bullshit.
SCOX has yet, to this day, refused to state what their claims are.
That is what IBM is saying here: SCOX was orderd (three times) to specify what their claims are. To date, they haven't. That's the problem.
Make sure there is absolutely no possible grounds for appeal, and then go after SCO for lawyers fees which will be more than their net worth.
No, SCOX will be dead by the time IBM's counterclaims are heard. The Lanham act claims are a slam-dunk, and they are worth more money than SCOX has had in the past few years.
They may even go after the corporate officers personally, who have been profiting from this insane lawsuit.
Not to mention BSF - who have a clause in their contract stating that they get a large slice of any buyout.
IBM's strategy is simple: burn SCOX to the ground, and salt the earth, to prevent another failed company from trying the same thing.
MS has very little to loose.
I disagree. Vista is a monster of Godzilla proportions, and if they loosed that on the world, they could wreak some major damage.
MS has a lot to loose, and they have nothing to lose by doing it!
a horny unicorn
Isn't that redundant?
I mean if it didn't have a horn, it would just be a horse, right?
There is still an issue (morally speaking) as to whether it is "piracy".
Not really.
some craniorectally inverted companies have taken out patents on a plethora of genetic sequences, but whether they have any right to do so is another matter altogether.
Considering "it" is not being done by Google, the issue is irrelevant.
Google is monopolizing genetic resources by putting genetic information online for free?
Sounds to me like these guys are a bunch of kooks who are attacking any large company who uses the words "genetic" and "database" in the same sentence.
Google is one of the biggest, so they automatically attack.
it's just possible that he's a competent manager
No, it's not.
Read the page - he believes that he got the problem fixed because he ranted and screamed and threatened. This is mutually exclusive with being a good manager.
He still doesn't understand that they didn't help him because he threatened to call the FBI, but in spite of it.
He needs to be canned - he is incompetant not only from a technical standpoint, but as a manager in general.
"[...] chicks dig a dude with money."
"Well, not all chicks."
"Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do."
you will also note how IBM sends customer complaints to the OpenSSH team.
Ahh, sorry, what?
I read the article, and it said that *ONE* IBM customer was sent to OpenSSH.
It did not say it happens on a regular basis. It did not say whether they were sent there by a manager, a contractor, or a frustrated developer. It did not say what the problem was. It *did* say that it was quoted by one of the biggest asshats in the OSS field today.
I'll take his anecdote with a grain of salt.
Saying the license excuses you from any moral obligations is imho just silly.
Sorry, but what moral obligations does the BSD code impose?
Please show me where, in the the BSD license, it says that you should pay the developers. Show me where it says "we're doing this for free, but we need to eat, and so would appreciate some money."
The people using BSD code are following not only the legal requirements, but the spirit of the BSD license - this means that they are already excused from the "moral" obligations.
WTF is wrong with Blizzard?
They're owned by a company run by overzealous lawyers.
The same company that sued Sony for inventing the VCR.
It's why I'll never buy a Blizzard (or Universal) product ever again (or, at least until they become more friendly to their customers.)
isn't the cf file only used at load time?
.cf file is used whenever the sendmail binary is run - on some systems this meant whenever a local user sends email.
The
As another poster pointed out, Sendmail is more than just a SMTP daemon.
What I don't understand is this:
Samba serves as PDC/BDC (not using Active Directory yet)
Apparently, he's planning on running Active Directory on Linux?
That's something I'd like to see!
If you can recognize your brother after he has gained weight, I'm sure the biometrics can recognize him, too.
Uh, yeah, because facial recognition software is so accurate.
I think you've watched a few too many hollywood movies.
costs roughly in line with Linux when you take into account administration/management costs and that MSFT was bending over backwards to meet their needs.
Translation:
Costs are the same, but it costs money to switch, therefore MS is trying to buy their business.
The fact that only the "parked" (read: bare pages with no interactivity and exceptionally low risk) will be changed means that GoDaddy is trying to take them up on it without really taking any risk.
Accesiblity for the blind likely costs more than it generates in revenue.
The same could be said for wheelchair ramps and automatic doors. Does that make it OK for buildings to exclude them?
If you love somebody, better set them on fire...
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life...
So.. your point is that everybody who wasn't involved in enacting *one specific law* (which doesn't mention government size) is automatically for less government control?
Sorry, I don't think that parses.
Do you have any references for that?
Just the web page he made for it (before you click on this link, be *VERY* sure you really, really want to know. You Have Been Warned.)