You are an idiot... thats the norm here at Slashdot. Trying sticking to subjects that you have a clue about.
>>but it probabably wasnt development or big things like Exchange
Actually, I supported some "small" product called Windows 2000 server. Also, the only tier above me was debug. The outsourced helpdesks called my desk for support. Maybe you might work your way up to working on one someday.
I've since moved on and up from Microsoft.
I bet you, with your poor attitude, are still at the IT level of "Want fries with that?"
I was a Microserf in Support... that's right; not all Microserfs are developers.
Here are some problems with Microsoft:
1. Training - There's a phone; now go do that support stuff
2. Customer satisfaction surveys - Customers got mad when you had to tell them "Windows doesn't work that way". You had to get a 8 or 9 out of 9 on everyr survey or your manager would get mad. Unsupported product? Third-party issue? User error? Tough!
3. Managers - I had 5 managers in one year. One manager skipped free training because it interfered with "Survivor" on TV. Only manager had atechnical clue; the rest might as well have managed a pizza parlor
4. Co-workers - they regularly backstabbed contractors. Why? Because they could
5. No internal processes - Support engineers have to just make everythingm up. There are NO processes for escalation
It is because of loser assholes like you that I have pretty much given up on Slashdot. Not matter what question is asked, or information posted, some lame MF has to go "WTF?"
It's called life. Get the fuck over it.
Maybe we can get some replies on slashdot from people that aren't from lame MF's like you.
I like the "It's a publicly traded lawsuit" comment because it is true! SCO has to add another complete lie to their case of lies to keep the momentum going!
SCO will ballyhoo suing a "linux" user, but as with the mysterious Linux licenses, we will not know a name.
In this article, which is really above average, Darl McBride is quoted making the following interesting statement:
"McBride says SCO revealed the offending code last August at its Las Vegas SCOForum. "Truly, and then they just ignored it," he said."
Now, I must point out Bruce Perens put his analysis of the Las Vegas SCOforum with hours of it ending last August 18th.
Link to Perens analysis:
http://www.perens.org/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
Also, Darl misquoted Perens' website so Darl knows it exists. Therefore, for Darl McBride to say that the Las Vegas SCOforum's showing of code "was ignored" is to make a lie that can be documented quite easily.
Yet in court Kevin Mcbride said they "do not now waht it is" when comes to code supposedly put in Linux by IBM.
How do you defend against the "I don't know defense"?
If SCO does not know what code is in question, they have no case.
PS Dump your SCO shares before the case is dismissed.
Yep, you pretty much called it just like it is. Your logic is good, and now I feel a lot better about all this SCO mess.
My concern now is how quickly IBM can get this case dismissed. If we have to play this game with SCO till April of 2005, I may go nuts.
What is the case law for situations like this? Do we wait till 2005 or can the judge dismiss the case due to SCO's inablilty to clearly show ownership of disputed code at this time?
------------
...and beyond them a far green country beneath a swift sunrise
Have we forgotten the quiet Open Group's stance in this copyright-driven debacle? They have steadfastly maintained that SCO does *not* own UNIX. There are many flavors of UNIX, and the contract between dispute between Novell and SCO/Caldera cannot possibly involve possible UNIX variations.
I have also read the groklaw and Yahoo! postings that describe how a small of number of "investors" can keep a stock price high.
What I am waiting for is the large institutional investors to dump tens of thousands of shares. All of these investors are watching each other; when one of them finally blinks, watch for SCOX to fall like a rock!
A MCSE, MCDST and Office Specialist? Wow again. You can open Active Directory Users and Computers and create a user, answer a telephone, and open Word docuements.
Actually, so many people are trying to short the stock, that there are no more shares to short.
The fun is going to be when the institutions and fund managers start to bail on the stock. This process will start when IBM presents it motion to dismiss.
You SCO trolls are amusing. Point to a shred of truth!
If you lies were true, why does SCO have to be compelled to show any evidence????????
Duh? Because SCO (you) never had any evidence, will never have any, and will lie through your teeth till the bitter day of reckoning, which is January 23rd.
SCO has broken the law with lies which is why they are being sued by IBM and Red Hat.
Let's not overlook these facts:
UNIX copyrights are held by Novell UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. SCO has never shown any evidence to a court of law
I have been following this case since it started, and this is the best description I have read of the way SCO's stock price is being manipulated. SCO insiders are making a killing very slowly.
Predictions:
1)SCO will announce that they have successfully sued a Linux user. However, just like the Linux liscensees from before, no names will be revealed. This will happen soon and the stock will climb to $25-30
2) IBM will move for a dismissal 3-4 days after getting evidence from SCO. This is when step 1 will occur.
3) As SCO's stock price is driven by small well-timed sales, a massive sell-off would be bad, so 1 will be timed to offset 2. The usual suspects will state SCO is a "strong buy"
4) SCO will give IBM next to nothing for evidence
5) SCO will lather, rinse, and repeat with another lawsuit to keep the gravy train going.
6) SEC will get involved and many SCO execs will move grass at Club Fed for a few years.
Red Hat and IBM must confront SCO in court and take the offensive to end this madness. SCO will not stop until they are either bankrupt or they are compelled to cease and desist with frivolous lawsuits.
Personally, I hope I am wrong on several of these, but these scenarios are what I fear will happen.
------ As time goes to zero, effort goes to infinity
Good point! The ads place Linux on the same level as Microsoft. The free attention is great, and as the ensuing exposure of MS FUD will be great...
Plus... just think how painful each new massive MS virus will be to the M$ publicity machine.
Further... what about a challenge like this: Get a Windows box and a Linux box for similiar tasks, say a web server, and see which has the higher uptime and fewer virus hits.
I would say Microsoft is concerned. Please note that they have very deep pockets and plenty of biased media analysts to lie, er, rather "report" for them, and Microsoft will play to the media.
God, look how SCO has played the media! Imagine what a company like Microsoft will do. No doubt they will have "studies" that prove Linux causes cancer, pimples, and rainy days.
Microsoft will have to be beaten in court just like SCO. Like SCO, Microsoft has a lot of enemies, and together Novell, IBM, Oracle and others can fend the beast off.
You confuse software with instruction. As I understand Mr. Stallman, his goal is that people can share software freely. Your complaints have to do with end user training, and also with user familiarity. These are seperate issue from sharing free software per se.
Training for free software/open source software will increase as the acceptance of the software increases.Free software is already being used by teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, and grandparents.
You state on page 6 that "SCO owns the rights to the UNIX operating system." My understanding is that SCO holds a copyright to the System V version of UNIX. SCO does not "own" UNIX. Copyright is not ownership. The Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) made this observation months ago.
Indeed, the Open Group, who holds the trademark for UNIX has publically stated on their website that SCO does NOT own UNIX.
Also note that MSN shut down the message board for SCOX, stating it was "inactive." This happened after me and some other Linux guys started asking questions, not flaming, the board.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an idiot... thats the norm here at Slashdot. Trying sticking to subjects that you have a clue about.
>>but it probabably wasnt development or big things like Exchange
Actually, I supported some "small" product called Windows 2000 server. Also, the only tier above me was debug. The outsourced helpdesks called my desk for support. Maybe you might work your way up to working on one someday.
I've since moved on and up from Microsoft.
I bet you, with your poor attitude, are still at the IT level of "Want fries with that?"
I was a Microserf in Support... that's right; not all Microserfs are developers.
Here are some problems with Microsoft:
1. Training - There's a phone; now go do that support stuff
2. Customer satisfaction surveys - Customers got mad when you had to tell them "Windows doesn't work that way". You had to get a 8 or 9 out of 9 on everyr survey or your manager would get mad. Unsupported product? Third-party issue? User error? Tough!
3. Managers - I had 5 managers in one year. One manager skipped free training because it interfered with "Survivor" on TV. Only manager had atechnical clue; the rest might as well have managed a pizza parlor
4. Co-workers - they regularly backstabbed contractors. Why? Because they could
5. No internal processes - Support engineers have to just make everythingm up. There are NO processes for escalation
I am glad to be gone from that madhouse
It is because of loser assholes like you that I have pretty much given up on Slashdot. Not matter what question is asked, or information posted, some lame MF has to go "WTF?" It's called life. Get the fuck over it. Maybe we can get some replies on slashdot from people that aren't from lame MF's like you.
Don't forget SCO phrases:
"Don't pull a 'SCO' on me"
-To suddenly forget a promise, fail to meet an agreement, or just be obstructive
"You're SCO'd"
i.e. screwed
"He's been SCOing from the start"
i.e. lying
You talk tuff mister anonymous fucking coward. Go fuck yourself!
Lying SCO whore-troll, BEGONE!
You are an idiot troll, BEGONE!
I like the "It's a publicly traded lawsuit" comment because it is true! SCO has to add another complete lie to their case of lies to keep the momentum going! SCO will ballyhoo suing a "linux" user, but as with the mysterious Linux licenses, we will not know a name.
Here is an interesting article that is in the Salt Lake Weekly:
4 -0 1-22.cfm
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_200
In this article, which is really above average, Darl McBride is quoted making the following interesting statement:
"McBride says SCO revealed the offending code last August at its Las Vegas SCOForum. "Truly, and then they just ignored it," he said."
Now, I must point out Bruce Perens put his analysis of the Las Vegas SCOforum with hours of it ending last August 18th.
Link to Perens analysis:
http://www.perens.org/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
Also, Darl misquoted Perens' website so Darl knows it exists. Therefore, for Darl McBride to say that the Las Vegas SCOforum's showing of code "was ignored" is to make a lie that can be documented quite easily.
Darl McBride: documented liar
Yet in court Kevin Mcbride said they "do not now waht it is" when comes to code supposedly put in Linux by IBM. How do you defend against the "I don't know defense"? If SCO does not know what code is in question, they have no case. PS Dump your SCO shares before the case is dismissed.
Yep, you pretty much called it just like it is. Your logic is good, and now I feel a lot better about all this SCO mess.
...and beyond them a far green country beneath a swift sunrise
My concern now is how quickly IBM can get this case dismissed. If we have to play this game with SCO till April of 2005, I may go nuts.
What is the case law for situations like this? Do we wait till 2005 or can the judge dismiss the case due to SCO's inablilty to clearly show ownership of disputed code at this time?
------------
Have we forgotten the quiet Open Group's stance in this copyright-driven debacle? They have steadfastly maintained that SCO does *not* own UNIX. There are many flavors of UNIX, and the contract between dispute between Novell and SCO/Caldera cannot possibly involve possible UNIX variations.
I have also read the groklaw and Yahoo! postings that describe how a small of number of "investors" can keep a stock price high.
What I am waiting for is the large institutional investors to dump tens of thousands of shares. All of these investors are watching each other; when one of them finally blinks, watch for SCOX to fall like a rock!
Did SCO Actually Buy What it CLAIMS? It is easy to employ a broad and self-serving interpetation of a contract to justify questionable actions.
Wow, you can quote the Microsoft FUD site.
N E,CCA,LCP,SCNP ,CCNP,CCDA...
A MCSE, MCDST and Office Specialist? Wow again. You can open Active Directory Users and Computers and create a user, answer a telephone, and open Word docuements.
Here's a tip: "quote facts, not FUD" (TM)(C)
gnutechguy
CISSP,MCSE(NT/2000/2003),MCT,MCSA,C
-----------
I will not say Do not weep! for not all tears are an evil
Actually, so many people are trying to short the stock, that there are no more shares to short.
The fun is going to be when the institutions and fund managers start to bail on the stock. This process will start when IBM presents it motion to dismiss.
You SCO trolls are amusing. Point to a shred of truth!
If you lies were true, why does SCO have to be compelled to show any evidence????????
Duh? Because SCO (you) never had any evidence, will never have any, and will lie through your teeth till the bitter day of reckoning, which is January 23rd.
SCO has broken the law with lies which is why they are being sued by IBM and Red Hat.
Let's not overlook these facts:
UNIX copyrights are held by Novell
UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
SCO has never shown any evidence to a court of law
I have been following this case since it started, and this is the best description I have read of the way SCO's stock price is being manipulated. SCO insiders are making a killing very slowly.
Predictions:
1)SCO will announce that they have successfully sued a Linux user. However, just like the Linux liscensees from before, no names will be revealed.
This will happen soon and the stock will climb to $25-30
2) IBM will move for a dismissal 3-4 days after getting evidence from SCO. This is when step 1 will occur.
3) As SCO's stock price is driven by small well-timed sales, a massive sell-off would be bad, so 1 will be timed to offset 2. The usual suspects will state SCO is a "strong buy"
4) SCO will give IBM next to nothing for evidence
5) SCO will lather, rinse, and repeat with another lawsuit to keep the gravy train going.
6) SEC will get involved and many SCO execs will move grass at Club Fed for a few years.
Red Hat and IBM must confront SCO in court and take the offensive to end this madness. SCO will not stop until they are either bankrupt or they are compelled to cease and desist with frivolous lawsuits.
Personally, I hope I am wrong on several of these, but these scenarios are what I fear will happen.
------
As time goes to zero, effort goes to infinity
Good point! The ads place Linux on the same level as Microsoft. The free attention is great, and as the ensuing exposure of MS FUD will be great...
Plus... just think how painful each new massive MS virus will be to the M$ publicity machine.
Further... what about a challenge like this: Get a Windows box and a Linux box for similiar tasks, say a web server, and see which has the higher uptime and fewer virus hits.
I would say Microsoft is concerned. Please note that they have very deep pockets and plenty of biased media analysts to lie, er, rather "report" for them, and Microsoft will play to the media.
God, look how SCO has played the media! Imagine what a company like Microsoft will do. No doubt they will have "studies" that prove Linux causes cancer, pimples, and rainy days.
Microsoft will have to be beaten in court just like SCO. Like SCO, Microsoft has a lot of enemies, and together Novell, IBM, Oracle and others can fend the beast off.
In court SCO has shown nothing and has been compelled to produce evidence!
Try reality and truth - for a change!
You confuse software with instruction. As I understand Mr. Stallman, his goal is that people can share software freely. Your complaints have to do with end user training, and also with user familiarity. These are seperate issue from sharing free software per se.
Training for free software/open source software will increase as the acceptance of the software increases.Free software is already being used by teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, and grandparents.
You state on page 6 that "SCO owns the rights to the UNIX operating system." My understanding is that SCO holds a copyright to the System V version of UNIX. SCO does not "own" UNIX. Copyright is not ownership. The Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) made this observation months ago.
Indeed, the Open Group, who holds the trademark for UNIX has publically stated on their website that SCO does NOT own UNIX.
The Open Group's website is theopengroup.org
Also note that MSN shut down the message board for SCOX, stating it was "inactive." This happened after me and some other Linux guys started asking questions, not flaming, the board.
Good point. DO you have a idea of how much time we are looking at? Are we looking weeks, months or years until SCO has to actually show?