Just wanted to let everyone know that this was Slashdot's most-visited story for the entire week!
I've always wondered how many Slashdot readers are programmers versus sys-admins. But maybe it would've been just as interesting to ask how many work on the front end, and how many are full-stack developers...
That you're a liar! Even Caldera describes their [one] press release [that's from 1996, and not from 1995 as you erroneously claim], as "pre-internet" -- so, it's basically the text of a fax -- and it was clearly just code-viewable software that remained horrifically proprietary. (No geeks could touch it, no geeks could ever redistribute it.) For that reason even that one time they were only using the phrase "open source code model" (that you couldn't touch or modify or redistribute). And nobody picked up their usage -- because it was completely worthless to have viewable source code if you couldn't actually do anything with the code once you looked at it.
You obviously want to remember things differently -- you've indicated that you want to hurt the OSI, but disseminating exaggerated and incorrect "memories" is just lying, in bad faith. The only thing on your blog I believe is that you were indeed "chumming" with SCO employees. That explains your obvious bias. But it doesn't excuse lying.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wanted to let everyone know that this was Slashdot's most-visited story for the entire week!
I've always wondered how many Slashdot readers are programmers versus sys-admins. But maybe it would've been just as interesting to ask how many work on the front end, and how many are full-stack developers...
> I have proven conclusively
That you're a liar! Even Caldera describes their [one] press release [that's from 1996, and not from 1995 as you erroneously claim], as "pre-internet" -- so, it's basically the text of a fax -- and it was clearly just code-viewable software that remained horrifically proprietary. (No geeks could touch it, no geeks could ever redistribute it.) For that reason even that one time they were only using the phrase "open source code model" (that you couldn't touch or modify or redistribute). And nobody picked up their usage -- because it was completely worthless to have viewable source code if you couldn't actually do anything with the code once you looked at it.
You obviously want to remember things differently -- you've indicated that you want to hurt the OSI, but disseminating exaggerated and incorrect "memories" is just lying, in bad faith. The only thing on your blog I believe is that you were indeed "chumming" with SCO employees. That explains your obvious bias. But it doesn't excuse lying.
While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information...
DefenseOne is owned by Atlantic Media, the 700-person company which also publishes The Atlantic magazine (and Quartz).
Hours after their story ran online it was confirmed by:
The Washington Post
The New York Post
Newsweek
Popular Mechanics.