Almost without exception, the lead stories have links. These links are mostly to Groklaw, who themselves give links to all the relevant info.
Thus, the info is there. As for the tone, I hardly think you could expect *any* publication to be without bias. For example, Forbes.com always reports in favour of Microsoft and SCO - no-one seems to be doing anything about that. What is worse, is that they don't even link data that could be useful to dissenters!
Furthermore,./ is more about the comments. This is what makes it so different to (say) Forbes - you are entitled to post an opinion, and correct what you consider to be distorted facts.
Anyone who only reads the head stories in/., is not really a/. reader, n'est-ce pas?
So, is Slashdot opinionated? Yeah, perhaps. Biased? No, I don't really think you have a case here.
I don't understand what you mean to imply when you ask whether Slashdot will give "an objective opinion" of the SCO case.
Slashdot is its users, who happen to give their opinions. Your accusation is like like Bush saying "I wonder when the New Yorkers will be more objective about my policies". Bush knows why he drives people up the wall (anti-abortion, anti-gay, slavery... ooops, or did he mention something about that?).
Likewise, the manner by which SCO is handling this, really riles people, and with due reason. Furthermore, the evidence has been stacking up so rapidly against SCO, that one could hardly be accused of being unreasonable for making the kind of statements you find here on/.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost without exception, the lead stories have links. These links are mostly to Groklaw, who themselves give links to all the relevant info. Thus, the info is there. As for the tone, I hardly think you could expect *any* publication to be without bias. For example, Forbes.com always reports in favour of Microsoft and SCO - no-one seems to be doing anything about that. What is worse, is that they don't even link data that could be useful to dissenters! Furthermore, ./ is more about the comments. This is what makes it so different to (say) Forbes - you are entitled to post an opinion, and correct what you consider to be distorted facts.
Anyone who only reads the head stories in /., is not really a /. reader, n'est-ce pas?
So, is Slashdot opinionated? Yeah, perhaps. Biased? No, I don't really think you have a case here.
I don't understand what you mean to imply when you ask whether Slashdot will give "an objective opinion" of the SCO case.
/.
Slashdot is its users, who happen to give their opinions. Your accusation is like like Bush saying "I wonder when the New Yorkers will be more objective about my policies". Bush knows why he drives people up the wall (anti-abortion, anti-gay, slavery... ooops, or did he mention something about that?).
Likewise, the manner by which SCO is handling this, really riles people, and with due reason. Furthermore, the evidence has been stacking up so rapidly against SCO, that one could hardly be accused of being unreasonable for making the kind of statements you find here on