It seems that SCO has missed a few facts on their stampede to litigation:
Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set.
Guess they never heard of Solaris x86?
What else are the mistaken about along the way?
A lot it seems... perhaps we should take score?
1 pt for each marketing hype disguised as legal verbiage.
2 pts for each plain old mistake
3 pts for each sneaky misdirection (i.e. that Linux could not run on more than 4 CPU's without massive help from a big vendor)
Anybody want to total up this mess?
At least we all get to see how afraid of Linux the actual UNIX holder is. Interesting stuff.
If the ISP has an abuse mail and someone reads it and researches the spam etc etc etc.
Most large ISPs do have such an address and people who deal with abuse notices including spam.
Yes, it costs money.
Anyone who pays per unit for connectivity a month, like many webhosting services charge, is losing some of their paid-for bandwidth to spam... and if they go over their monthly limit, they have to pay for more bandwidth?
Finally people who's mailboxes are size limited unless they pay for an account would probably appreciate getting a larger mailbox for free by not having it clogged with spam.
If the mailbox runs out, you can either fight spam for the rest of your life or pony up cash for a bigger better mailbox, so the spam problem doesn't bite so hard.
I could keep going forever, but yes, spam costs money... but not to the spammer. They foist their costs off on everyone else, without asking.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that SCO has missed a few facts on their stampede to litigation: Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set. Guess they never heard of Solaris x86? What else are the mistaken about along the way? A lot it seems... perhaps we should take score? 1 pt for each marketing hype disguised as legal verbiage. 2 pts for each plain old mistake 3 pts for each sneaky misdirection (i.e. that Linux could not run on more than 4 CPU's without massive help from a big vendor) Anybody want to total up this mess? At least we all get to see how afraid of Linux the actual UNIX holder is. Interesting stuff.
If the ISP has an abuse mail and someone reads it and researches the spam etc etc etc. Most large ISPs do have such an address and people who deal with abuse notices including spam. Yes, it costs money. Anyone who pays per unit for connectivity a month, like many webhosting services charge, is losing some of their paid-for bandwidth to spam... and if they go over their monthly limit, they have to pay for more bandwidth? Finally people who's mailboxes are size limited unless they pay for an account would probably appreciate getting a larger mailbox for free by not having it clogged with spam. If the mailbox runs out, you can either fight spam for the rest of your life or pony up cash for a bigger better mailbox, so the spam problem doesn't bite so hard. I could keep going forever, but yes, spam costs money... but not to the spammer. They foist their costs off on everyone else, without asking.