And what happens if the person who is opening the CD drawer really has no right to and then completely
screws up whatever some other user(s) are doing.
And that just happens so much doesn't it; a lot more than a user not being able to get a disk out of a drive that he has every right to remove; that's why we have this default behaviour.
C'mon. It's an an anachronistic throw back that should be corrected.
SCO was enjoined in Germany in 7 days because they refused to defend the action; basically they just rolled over. What kind of justice system do you want? One where anyone can get an injunction based on mere allegations in a complaint without the necessity of coming forward with proof and the opportunity for the otherside to offer proof in their defense?
True only up to a certain point. Both these companies have sufficient assets to fund this litigation IMHO. I tried cases for a long time and there's an old sying: A lawyer is as good as his case. Great lawyers with lousy facts will loose almost every time to a mediocre lawyer with great facts on his side. However, neither of these companies are going to court with inadequate representation. Of that you can be sure. The really interesting thing to watch here will be the discovery phase. Redhat will be able to investigate any potential micorsoft involvement in this whole soap opera. If there is evidence that SCO and microsoft improperly colluded in spreading this FUD, microsoft could be dragged into the case as a party defendant under a civil conspiracy theory. Then watch the fireworks fly.
That's why Novell waited til now. SCO licensed IP it didn't own to MS which thereby tacitly acknowledged it neede to do so to not violate that IP. Novell owns the IP that MS says it needs and can now demand that MS pony up to Novell and pay for the IP they say they they are using. Novell's next letter:
Dear Bill, You owe us a butload of money. Pay up or else. Very truly yours,
Slashdot Mirror
SCO was enjoined in Germany in 7 days because they refused to defend the action; basically they just rolled over. What kind of justice system do you want? One where anyone can get an injunction based on mere allegations in a complaint without the necessity of coming forward with proof and the opportunity for the otherside to offer proof in their defense?
True only up to a certain point. Both these companies have sufficient assets to fund this litigation IMHO. I tried cases for a long time and there's an old sying:
A lawyer is as good as his case.
Great lawyers with lousy facts will loose almost every time to a mediocre lawyer with great facts on his side. However, neither of these companies are going to court with inadequate representation. Of that you can be sure.
The really interesting thing to watch here will be the discovery phase. Redhat will be able to investigate any potential micorsoft involvement in this whole soap opera. If there is evidence that SCO and microsoft improperly colluded in spreading this FUD, microsoft could be dragged into the case as a party defendant under a civil conspiracy theory. Then watch the fireworks fly.
That's why Novell waited til now. SCO licensed IP it didn't own to MS which thereby tacitly acknowledged it neede to do so to not violate that IP. Novell owns the IP that MS says it needs and can now demand that MS pony up to Novell and pay for the IP they say they they are using. Novell's next letter:
Dear Bill,
You owe us a butload of money. Pay up or else.
Very truly yours,
Novell