I've seen these EXACT words used a number of times before on different sites. Seems somebody learned how to cut and paste.
Truth is, *BSD is far from dead. In fact, until this April, FreeBSD to quote Netcraft "...had without exception been the most common operating system amongst the top ten each month.". This quote was in relation to a most reliable web servers list. In April, 5 of the top 10 were Linux based systems and 4 were *BSD (the other 1 if your curious was Windows).
I was just going to say that:-). Big difference from, oh..I don't know, SOLARIS. Which ships with sendmail running as an open relay listening on outside NICS.
Well said!!...It also annoys me to no end when the end user of their "it's good enough" argument shouldn't be doing any of the things they list to begin with. It's their software and the glut of additional "features" that have made such a mess of information technology infrastructures.
I agree....that's the main point missing from this thread. It's not about using only OSS or non-OSS. It's about what works best for the business. Technology must align with business objectives. Anyone in IT who doesn't realize this should be in another business.
That said....after analyzing business requirements, most systems don't need the 10,000 options that come with say Microsoft, Oracle or IBM products. They pay for 10,000 features and use 2. This is the norm - and for some reason, completely acceptable business practice???
In almost all cases there is an OSS product that will work just fine, save some money and let the business move forward. In some cases there isn't. All options have to be weighed.
The contradictions in SCO's arguments will eventually be their downfall.
One has to wonder what law school SCO's advisers went to when even I can see there is no case here....wait...I almost forgot, silly me...lawyers and judges are moronic money grubbers with IQ's relative to that of a half witted chimpanzee.
I have faith in the open source communities ability to deal with this issue given the brilliant minds that actively sustain it. With that said, the outcome of this is far from certain. The battle is being waged in their territory. The judges are bought and you can't see the evidence without an NDA. Personally, my hopes are with the deep pockets of IBM. This is going to go on for years, by which time SCO will be out of business...perhaps my faith should be in time...
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen these EXACT words used a number of times before on different sites. Seems somebody learned how to cut and paste.
Truth is, *BSD is far from dead. In fact, until this April, FreeBSD to quote Netcraft "...had without exception been the most common operating system amongst the top ten each month.". This quote was in relation to a most reliable web servers list. In April, 5 of the top 10 were Linux based systems and 4 were *BSD (the other 1 if your curious was Windows).
I was just going to say that :-). Big difference from, oh..I don't know, SOLARIS. Which ships with sendmail running as an open relay listening on outside NICS.
Well said!!...It also annoys me to no end when the end user of their "it's good enough" argument shouldn't be doing any of the things they list to begin with. It's their software and the glut of additional "features" that have made such a mess of information technology infrastructures.
I agree....that's the main point missing from this thread. It's not about using only OSS or non-OSS. It's about what works best for the business. Technology must align with business objectives. Anyone in IT who doesn't realize this should be in another business.
That said....after analyzing business requirements, most systems don't need the 10,000 options that come with say Microsoft, Oracle or IBM products. They pay for 10,000 features and use 2. This is the norm - and for some reason, completely acceptable business practice???
In almost all cases there is an OSS product that will work just fine, save some money and let the business move forward. In some cases there isn't. All options have to be weighed.
The contradictions in SCO's arguments will eventually be their downfall.
One has to wonder what law school SCO's advisers went to when even I can see there is no case here....wait...I almost forgot, silly me...lawyers and judges are moronic money grubbers with IQ's relative to that of a half witted chimpanzee.
I have faith in the open source communities ability to deal with this issue given the brilliant minds that actively sustain it. With that said, the outcome of this is far from certain. The battle is being waged in their territory. The judges are bought and you can't see the evidence without an NDA. Personally, my hopes are with the deep pockets of IBM. This is going to go on for years, by which time SCO will be out of business...perhaps my faith should be in time...