Posted on 06/10/2004 9:54:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
So it was a swindle job then, right?
Here.
Thanks for the link, that's where several Freepers admitted their connections to IBM, I had been wondering where that was. As far as to your point that you and I had this discussion, we did not, your link was to a post by cc2k, not Nick Danger. But if you want to bring others into it, I'm just going on what Linus Torvalds himself said about it (2 posts down in your link):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090154/posts?page=60#60
Torvalds: "I think there was a fair amount of bad feeling when IBM dropped out of the Monterey project [a joint-development project with SCO]. That was a big deal for SCO, and they had a hard time with that."
No Novell let every trade publication there is run front page stories that Unix rights had been transferred. If they want to now claim they weren't, it was just a con job. I've never even heard of Microsoft screwing somebody that bad, saying they sold them something then 5 years later trying to come back and say "psyche! GOTCHA!"
"Says who? I saw reports of exactly the opposite."
Cite one? In fact, you dispute your claim below.
"They claim they are being swindled out of it, wouldn't be the first time IBM's been accused of that. And Novell is doing what, playing peek a boo with whether they sold Unix or not? Looks awful fishy, no telling who to believe."
Where can you find an example of IBM losing a case for doing what you accuse them of? I can tell you from first hand experience as an ex-IBMer, that's not in their playbook. For all their flaws, they are a highly ethical company.
What do you mean by "peek-a-boo?" They have claimed they sold certain rights, not the entire product.
And again, when put to the test, SCO failed to show that anyh SYSV code is in Linux. The little examples they showed were not part of SYSV, and were headers which define freely publicly usable interfaces.
You claimed in #33:
"ROFL, you're the one spinning. So what if Linux is open, AIX is not. And that's what IBM is hiding. Either you already knew that, or you're just a blind puppet for your cause."
I don't appreciate the juvenile insult, for starters. Besides that it's silly - all puppets are blind, they are inanimate objects. :) You are moving the goalpost here. SCO has to 1) prove they own SYSV, and 2) prove that parts of SYSV are in LINUX. Proving that pieces of code that IBM wrote are in LINUX don't matter, since SCO *doesn't own that code*. I believe that IBM wrote a journalling file system, and added it to Linux, and that SCO is claiming rights to the code that IBM wrote... and yet you said that "They claim they are being swindled out of it, wouldn't be the first time IBM's been accused of that." EVEN THOUGH THAT IS WHAT SCO IS TRYING TO DO TO IBM - DEPRIVE THEM OF RIGHTS TO THEIR OWN PRODUCT.
"Just more of the "eternal unix wars", which is how linux was born in the first place. I just don't like the way IBM did SCO. SCO was the original Unix for Intel and a closed source product is better for the US economy and security."
1) No, Microsoft XENIX preceded SCO. It was pretty nifty, too.
2) How is closed source better for the economy or for security? I don't buy that argument.... either part.
I said you'd been caught in this lie before. It's only one note above... go read it again. You have been caught before. You challenged me to prove that, claiming that we would find out who's lying, and lo and behold, Google catches you right in the act. Twice. About the same thing.
You bring us Linus Torvalds as an authority figure on contracts? That's a hoot. You won't even admit the guy can write code. And that's when you're not calling him a communist.
In any case, Linus Torvalds does not tell lies for a living. When SCO said they'd been hosed by IBM in Monterey, he had no reason to think they would blatantly lie about something like that. But now we know that the project was cancelled months before Caldera completed the purchase. Not only that, such a cancellation in the event of a change of control was expressly part of the Monterey agreement.
SCO was doing the same thing you just tried to do: fool people by hoping they would assume that the Santa Cruz Operation and the The SCO Group, Inc. are the same company. It's a sleazy trick. I understand why SCO does it... they are lying sleazeballs. Why you do it shall remain a mystery.
I'm just going on what Linus Torvalds said, guess he's a liar too then. And you've admitted the company is lawsuit hungry, so they bought the rights to Unix just so they could sue IBM over it. They were in the right when they sued Microsoft and CA, looks like they have a history of being correct. Except according to you, you'd apparently rather let these monstrous software companies like Microsoft IBM and CA run roughshod over everyone in their way.
Slowly but surely the truth is coming out as to who has vested interests and who doesn't. I've been accused of working for Microsoft, when it's starting to turn a lot of you Linux hounds either work or used to work for IBM. It's not even worth debating with you, since you're not objective. I need to compile a list, so whenever you say something on the subject I can say "tainted post! works or used to work for IBM!". Would only be fair, that's sure as hell what people have tried to do to me, when there's no relationship at all.
" Slowly but surely the truth is coming out as to who has vested interests and who doesn't. I've been accused of working for Microsoft, when it's starting to turn a lot of you Linux hounds either work or used to work for IBM. It's not even worth debating with you, since you're not objective. I need to compile a list, so whenever you say something on the subject I can say "tainted post! works or used to work for IBM!". Would only be fair, that's sure as hell what people have tried to do to me, when there's no relationship at all."
Um - I haven't worked for IBM for several years, sold all my stock 2 years ago, and dont' have any contact with any IBMers I worked with. Also, I worked for Global Services, Security & Privacy practice, the consulting side.... not the product side.
If you are going to accuse me of something, be specific. Then again, specific accusations do not appear to be your forte.
You gonna reply to this one?
You worked for IBM is plenty specific enough to know you're not objective on the issues. NEXT!
Honest people tend to believe other people, because they assume them to be honest as well. SCO said that's how it happened. Torvalds had no reason to suspect otherwise. It's not that often you see companies telling bald-faced lies about simple, checkable matters of fact. I can't imagine how they expected to get away with it. SCO's behavior is positively sociopathic. The cancellation of Monterey was publicly announced, and the closing on the purchase from SCO is part of their own SEC filings. It's not like people can't look at the dates and see that they had nine months to back out of the deal if they thought it was that bad. Instead they tell this lie and hope nobody checks. Besides you, who else would do that?
That's probably not a bad guess, given that these are the same guys who bought DR-DOS just to sue Microsoft. Buy some antique IP, sue people with it. I guess to some people, that sounds like a business.
You're projecting again. It wasn't me defending Microsoft for hiring a lobbyist to write a hit-piece book about a private individual. You called complaining about that "whining," as though that sort of behavior is an acceptable business practice. We have you on record defending it, so let's not hear any more from you about the poor 'little guy' being whacked by big bad software companies. When it's Microsoft smearing people with cooked-up lies, you're all for it.
" You worked for IBM is plenty specific enough to know you're not objective on the issues. NEXT!"
Non sequiter alert!
How do you figure? I have no further financial interest in IBM, and no loyalty to them since I don't work for them.
Right, worked before might work again. And no way are you about to claim Microsoft was innocent, or are you?
It wasn't me defending Microsoft for hiring a lobbyist to write a hit-piece book about a private individual. You called complaining about that "whining," as though that sort of behavior is an acceptable business practice.
Apples and Oranges. First you haven't proven Microsoft is responsible for that book, and second, he's only reiterating what Eric Raymond, OSS advocate, said in his book. Torvalds himself has since admitted he didn't "invent" Linux, so your continual whining of the book being somehow unfair is laughable. What IBM and Novell are doing to SCO is very possibly criminal.
Change your tagline to "Disclaimer: I am a former employee of IBM" and maybe I'll lay off. Otherwise, forget it. You can thank Nick Danger and the rest of you hounds for falsely accusing me of being somehow associated with Microsoft. What goes around comes around, or so at least I've heard.
"Change your tagline to "Disclaimer: I am a former employee of IBM" and maybe I'll lay off. Otherwise, forget it. You can thank Nick Danger and the rest of you hounds for falsely accusing me of being somehow associated with Microsoft. What goes around comes around, or so at least I've heard."
Did it ever occur to you that just because someoen worked once for a 350,000 employee company that they don't agree lockstep with everything they do forever after?
I'm hardly an IBM cheerleader. On the other hand, you are a Microsoft cheerleader. Of course, IBM and Microsoft do a LOT of business together, as well. IBM and SCO (the old SCO) did a lot of business together.
So what?
It's sad of you to use this little retort as an excuse to not address the issues.
I hate to break it to you, but considering that IBM is the largest tech company on the planet... any time you engage a group of people about tech industry issues, there are bound to be a few ex-IBMers around.
Now put down the red herring, your breath already stinks from it, and address the issues I previously mentioned.
My status as a former IBM employee has nothing to do with those questions for you, and the misrepresentations of yours that I pointed out.
I should have continued my policy of ignoring this "guy."
C'mon, dude. SCO should have had some clue where to find evidence to support their case before they filed suit. Now they want to dig through AIX to try to find something, ANYTHING to back up their claim.
I'm sure SCO will someday find some line of pagerized code, some commented-out line of debugging code, something.
It's like my neighbor accusing me of stealing something, problem is he can't remember what it is I supposedly stole. So the police get themselves a search warrant and rummage through my entire house, emptying drawers, cabinets, storage containers...
In they end, they do find something. Maybe it's a pie plate, left here from some long forgotten get-together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.