Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!
From: JamesDad (mewnewsARROGANCE_at_mailandnews.com)
Date: 12/27/03
- Next message: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Previous message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: unixware 7.1.3?"
- In reply to: FyRE: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:28:20 GMT
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:44:36 +0000, FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:31:30 GMT, JamesDad
><mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>Have you considered that by your standards, *IBM* and *Red Hat* and *Linus
>>Torvalds*, among others, are the enemy? They're not coming out with
>>cannons blazing at SCO. They're patiently feeding SCO plenty of rope that
>>SCO's execs will eventually hang themselves with. They're playing it cool.
>>They *are" cool. You could learn a lot from them.
>
>"Torvalds hits back at SCO" - http://www.vnunet.com/News/1151723
>"Redhat sues SCO" - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10849
>Anyone who thinks IBM are sitting on their hands waiting for SCO to
>hang themselves is more than a little naive. In their recent reponses
>to SCO's continuing delay tactics, the wording in their documents has
>been pretty harsh, bordering on sarcastic.
>
>Maybe I'll have to start posting more of the latest news here so you
>don't miss so much, JD.
First, I want to make it clear that I'm not going to get into the kind of
"I didn't say that--you've misunderstood me" kind of roundabout that I've
seen played on Tony all too often. I *will* clarify what I meant, trusting
that you understand the English language and that you'll ask questions if
you don't get it.
I'm quite well-informed on the issues and the events that are going on.
You might even be impressed at the amount of reading I've done and
continue to do. Just on a daily basis, I at least check the eWeek site
(Steven Vaughan-Nichols stays on the ball--have you read his latest op-ed
piece about SCO, written in Dr. Seuss style? It's a riot!*), Groklaw
(sometimes several times a day) and here.
* "The Little SCO That Cried Wolf"
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1420046,00.asp
I have had no intention of implying that IBM, RH and Linus are just lying
down and taking it. Far from it. Rather, IBM and RH are cooly fighting the
battle where it counts--with the facts involved in the legal challenges.
RH is working so cooly that someone had to ask on Groklaw the other day
what was happening in that case. As for Linus, even when he's countering
SCO's FUD, he does it with cool, even humble refutation with facts,
concentrating (IMHO) on the issues that are most important. "Torvalds hits
back" is an editor's wording, not Linus'. He may be fuming in private (and
probably is), but isn't mounting a counter-attack of the nature of SCO's
effort to try the case in the court of public opinion.
The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to sling your own ****
just because someone else is. Steven's article makes the point that SCO's
FUD campaign has gone so far as to discredit them even when they're right
(like the latest DDoS attack). For a full day on Groklaw, there was very
little sympathy for SCO or even belief that such an attack was occurring,
backed up by observations from an Australian defense security expert. It
was only the next day, when more info came to light (not from SCO, but
from CAIDA--an independent third-party source) that PJ put up an article
correcting the issue.
People who use this newsgroup as a forum for put-downs, personal attacks.
sarcastically written news-information posts, and taking out their
frustrations on people who aren't quite as riled up about the issues as
they are can lose their credibility just as thoroughly. Sure, someone can
post about anything they want to here that's SCO-related and be on-topic,
but if the goal is to persuade, one must be persuasable so that one's
potential audience is willing to listen.
Neither IBM nor RH are mounting counter-attacks in the press either.
They're speaking where it counts--in the courts. Yes, IBM's getting
testier in their legal documents, but the words are being spoken in *legal
documents*, not press releases or interviews. (I read The Darl's latest
interview in CRN magazine, and was about to barf.)
There's a saying about "religious fanatics" that contains a principle that
I think can apply equally well to overzealous Linux advocates or those
otherwise trying to counter-FUD SCO: "A fanatic is not someone with too
much religion, it's someone with too little sense."
'nuff said for now.
-- I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>. *** Remove ARROGANCE Before Replying ***
- Next message: JamesDad: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Previous message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: unixware 7.1.3?"
- In reply to: FyRE: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: Blake Stowell said Linux ABI is not infringing!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
