As I said, it really appeared to me that you were primarily a SCO reseller who was strangely glib about the possibility of your business being destroyed by SCO's current posturing.. I found that odd, and, since I've got personal experience with a similar circumstance, hence my original comment.
Go easy there, chum; I didn't just fall off the tree myself.
You are right about this being business. And that said, 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.
Of course, if that supplier isn't the only one you have or isn't a major portion of your business,then you have little to worry about. However, based on our conversation, I'd say that it is and that you're content to go down with a sinking ship. That's what I questioned; of course it is ludicrous to just abandon a customer base, but you aren't in business to be a charity either.
Hey.. just apt-got kstars on my PIII-500 laptop. Outstanding! Now I gotta buy a telescope so I can use kstars to steer it! Thanks for the link in your.sig.
Honestly? No, it really didn't come across to me that way. I would have thought that, being a SCO reseller, you'd be furious over SCO's shenanigans because (as you state) it could have a disastrous effect on your livelihood (and upon your employees, if any). What I perceived was a "C'est la vie" attitude on your part. I've seen that same attitude from others in similar-yet-different circumstances, and that attitude ended up having a rather large negative impact on people close to me.
Forgive my misinterpretation. But your entire post (I did go and read the whole thing you posted in June on another site, not just the snippet provided above) didn't strike me as being concerned about Linux.
So let me ask you; are you considering not being a SCO reseller anymore because of their recent actions?
I have enough respect that I didn't AC that post. And, for the record, the role of Wesley on STNG wasn't his fault; the writers really started screwing that show in the later years. He did the best he could with what was, IMHO, a poorly-written character who was largely unecessary to the show. Remember, I specifically stated that I've liked some of his other work. I'd like to see what he's been doing lately (if he hasn't suffered from being "typecast"). I guess I'll have a look at his site for more info...
Sorry if I'm in a bitter mood - suddenly losing a huge chunk of venture funding can do that to a person.
You know dude.. I really LIKED you in Stand By Me (I'm also a recovering Stephen King reader). But I really couldn't wait until your scrawny little carcass was flushed out of an Enterprise airlock or you were sodomized to death by Warf....
You're like the John-Boy of the 90s (and it looks like poor Richard Thomas' career is reduced to playing a lawyer on some shitty show on PAX. It's too bad; he's actually a good actor).
Anyway.. keep up the good work; I'm hoping you still have an acting career (and that you gain a few pounds - try beer; it worked wonders for me).
(ps: I'm an actor too. I've been acting like a SysAdmin/Network Technical Operations for over a decade...)
The XB-70 was designed to fly high, out of range of Soviet SAMs. When Gary Powers had his "Moscow Vacation", that idea died and so did the Valkyrie. The concept then became one of terrain-following, such that one could approach underneath radar tracking. Thus did the B1 come into being.
Skylab lived longer than originally planned (as did Mir). Both begat ISS.
But BayStar's McGrath again stressed that Microsoft was not an investor in this deal. But he did point out that the fact that Microsoft had done business with SCO was seen as a positive when BayStar was looking at SCO as a potential good business and good investment.
Let's see... zero sales revenue/growth/planning, an entire profit projection based SOLELY on a rather speculative lawsuit based itself on evidence the plaintiff refuses to divulge, but oh yeah, Microsoft immediately bought one of their licenses (and to date is one of only two or three who have) so it must be a good business investment. Never mind that Microsoft is one of the larger players in Baystar's portfolios.
You may be Overly Critical Guy, but you are frequently more like Underly Logical Guy.
Drug dealers and terrorists aren't the only people who "launder" money.. This certainly continues to smell like a Microsoft circus act.
None. However, I monitor a few security mailing lists where folks who DO submit bug reports to Microsoft have outlined the weeks/months/years of Microsoft's inaction, inattention, or outright denial. So unless all those folks are consistently lying, I'm feeling confident in guessing that Microsoft's turnaround time on this issue is rather pathetic (especially compared to the turnaround I've seen with OSS).
SGI's problem was that it tried to take on Sun and IBM in the "Big Iron" server market. They got crushed. They then attempted to latch onto NT in a failed attempt to gain in the workstation market (this after failing to catch on with their entry-level Indy boxes [although, I actually liked my Indy...]).
IIRC, I got my Debian SSH and Sendmail patches same-day. I have NEVER seen Microsoft even respond to a bug submission that fast, let alone release a working patch.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the $100 is intended to cover the cost of filing the suit. Remember, filing initial papers with a court costs money.
And you thought the courts existed solely on our tax dollars?
The biggest problem they encountered was where to put Ctrl-Alt-Delete on the M14.
That's "Colonel Panic", to you.
http://www.codeweavers.com
That's all you need.
Ahh.. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
As I said, it really appeared to me that you were primarily a SCO reseller who was strangely glib about the possibility of your business being destroyed by SCO's current posturing.. I found that odd, and, since I've got personal experience with a similar circumstance, hence my original comment.
Cheers!
This isn't high school. This is business.
Go easy there, chum; I didn't just fall off the tree myself.
You are right about this being business. And that said, 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.
Of course, if that supplier isn't the only one you have or isn't a major portion of your business,then you have little to worry about. However, based on our conversation, I'd say that it is and that you're content to go down with a sinking ship. That's what I questioned; of course it is ludicrous to just abandon a customer base, but you aren't in business to be a charity either.
Please correct my impression if incorrect.
Hey.. just apt-got kstars on my PIII-500 laptop. Outstanding! Now I gotta buy a telescope so I can use kstars to steer it! Thanks for the link in your .sig.
Honestly? No, it really didn't come across to me that way. I would have thought that, being a SCO reseller, you'd be furious over SCO's shenanigans because (as you state) it could have a disastrous effect on your livelihood (and upon your employees, if any). What I perceived was a "C'est la vie" attitude on your part. I've seen that same attitude from others in similar-yet-different circumstances, and that attitude ended up having a rather large negative impact on people close to me.
Forgive my misinterpretation. But your entire post (I did go and read the whole thing you posted in June on another site, not just the snippet provided above) didn't strike me as being concerned about Linux.
So let me ask you; are you considering not being a SCO reseller anymore because of their recent actions?
I have enough respect that I didn't AC that post. And, for the record, the role of Wesley on STNG wasn't his fault; the writers really started screwing that show in the later years. He did the best he could with what was, IMHO, a poorly-written character who was largely unecessary to the show. Remember, I specifically stated that I've liked some of his other work. I'd like to see what he's been doing lately (if he hasn't suffered from being "typecast"). I guess I'll have a look at his site for more info...
Sorry if I'm in a bitter mood - suddenly losing a huge chunk of venture funding can do that to a person.
You know dude.. I really LIKED you in Stand By Me (I'm also a recovering Stephen King reader). But I really couldn't wait until your scrawny little carcass was flushed out of an Enterprise airlock or you were sodomized to death by Warf....
You're like the John-Boy of the 90s (and it looks like poor Richard Thomas' career is reduced to playing a lawyer on some shitty show on PAX. It's too bad; he's actually a good actor).
Anyway.. keep up the good work; I'm hoping you still have an acting career (and that you gain a few pounds - try beer; it worked wonders for me).
(ps: I'm an actor too. I've been acting like a SysAdmin/Network Technical Operations for over a decade...)
I'm sure his employees (if he has any) really enjoy his cavalier attitude...
He sounds like he's frittering away a trust fund; ergo real business events don't concern him.
but what do the feds call iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc?
How about "not subject to anti-trust litigation".
The XB-70 was designed to fly high, out of range of Soviet SAMs. When Gary Powers had his "Moscow Vacation", that idea died and so did the Valkyrie. The concept then became one of terrain-following, such that one could approach underneath radar tracking. Thus did the B1 come into being.
Skylab lived longer than originally planned (as did Mir). Both begat ISS.
Now if only the Romans had kept those Amigas...
Ms. Harris, please contact me at "blackbox@baymoon.com".
But BayStar's McGrath again stressed that Microsoft was not an investor in this deal. But he did point out that the fact that Microsoft had done business with SCO was seen as a positive when BayStar was looking at SCO as a potential good business and good investment.
Let's see... zero sales revenue/growth/planning, an entire profit projection based SOLELY on a rather speculative lawsuit based itself on evidence the plaintiff refuses to divulge, but oh yeah, Microsoft immediately bought one of their licenses (and to date is one of only two or three who have) so it must be a good business investment. Never mind that Microsoft is one of the larger players in Baystar's portfolios.
You may be Overly Critical Guy, but you are frequently more like Underly Logical Guy.
Drug dealers and terrorists aren't the only people who "launder" money.. This certainly continues to smell like a Microsoft circus act.
Try this...
cleats and Livr-Snaks?
goddamnit.. I meant "High Plains Drifter"..
Gives a whole new meaning to "Asses of Fire", eh?
cool piccie.. thanks for the link!
Amen brother. I'm hoping that Jon's mean younger look-alike brother would slowly ride into town and pull a "Pale Rider" on these fucktards.
None. However, I monitor a few security mailing lists where folks who DO submit bug reports to Microsoft have outlined the weeks/months/years of Microsoft's inaction, inattention, or outright denial. So unless all those folks are consistently lying, I'm feeling confident in guessing that Microsoft's turnaround time on this issue is rather pathetic (especially compared to the turnaround I've seen with OSS).
SGI's problem was that it tried to take on Sun and IBM in the "Big Iron" server market. They got crushed. They then attempted to latch onto NT in a failed attempt to gain in the workstation market (this after failing to catch on with their entry-level Indy boxes [although, I actually liked my Indy...]).
...this joke is dying.
Microsoft doesn't employ idiots
Oh yeah? Then explain Ballmer...
IIRC, I got my Debian SSH and Sendmail patches same-day. I have NEVER seen Microsoft even respond to a bug submission that fast, let alone release a working patch.