SCO and poll

[TRN]

The other morning, I wrote a quick blurb that the approach taken by the Linux Community is not exaggerated enough and suggested that polar arguments are the only way to win a compromise.

This poll is filled with the emotional polar views. Do you support any of these or do you know of an additional one that should be added?

Update: If your view isn't listed then post it and I'll try to add it.

[TRN]

What if SCO is right? (http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10000066)

[TRN]

NewsForge Article (http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/05/18/2214204.shtml?tid=3) which states a good theory that SCO should be sued first. It's a nice analysis.

[TRN]

And don't forget that Microsoft has reached an agreement with SCO. Interesting.

[TRN]

This post originates from a thread in a mailing list but it had me intrigued enough to post parts of the ideas here and then I'll let you chime in too.

www.sco.com is hosted by NFT, which uses Linux. Did SCO send a notice to NFT that they may be sued for using Linux? Has SCO made plans to change host providers? If not, then are they jeopardizing their own stance that there is harm?

From www.netcraft.com:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com

The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux

[TRN]

SCO Group shreds MS antitrust lawsuit documents. Is this a coincidence to the loan from MS or a money saving tactic?

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=29450

[hazza]

SCO are turing into paid shills of MS. Did anyone see the articles about MS licencing IP from SCO for .. um can't remember the stupid reason they gave but it was very tranparent.

Wait 2-3 days and you will see letters being sent out by MS saying things along the lines of "See we told you the GPL and Linux have IP issues and are dangerous, stay/buy with our (P)OS we will look after you"

SCO will get completely shot down in flames, which everybody expects, and MS didn't get the main stream press coverage (read mind numbing, depressing 6 o'clock propagander) they had hoped for so it will be a bit of a fizzer to try and point it out to the PHB.

[hazza]

BTW Why didn't you have a response of:

SCO are in deep financial trouble after Linux is eating their lunch are doing this because Microsoft paid them to.

Maybe to slanderous? Afraid of getting sued? It would be the only one people selected?

[TRN]

BTW Why didn't you have a response of:

SCO are in deep financial trouble after Linux is eating their lunch are doing this because Microsoft paid them to.

Maybe to slanderous? Afraid of getting sued? It would be the only one people selected?

I don't expect anyone on this site is worried about slander since we cannot hear each other utter words of slander. However, libel might be a concern for someone who posts false information that leads to harm of an individual or entity.

:lol:

Personally, I find the saga of SCO fascinating and wasn't amazed regarding the MS deal. It's a great way for MS to discredit Linux, something they've tried to do for quite some time.

[hazza]

MS probably paid quite a bit for that FUD arrow, but FUD is all they got because the ain't got much else.

[TRN]

Computer Weekly (http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=122186&liFlavourID=1&sp=1)

[TRN]

Linux World (http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0530.murphy.html) article suggesting that the SCO case is a slam dunk against IBM.

[LJ]

Saw this on http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12800009 Internet Week

(via http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/07/09/1911253.shtml?tid=23 Newsforge)

"Fully 91 percent of people responding to an InternetWeek Reader Question said they will not change their Linux deployment plans as a result of SCO's actions. "

[TRN]

Those of you trying to follow all of the news stories may be interested in this Wiki.

http://sco.iwethey.org/