Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!
sn-xit-08!supernews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!
news2.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: brian <br...@english-bay.com>
Subject: SCO allegations unfounded...
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
Reply-To: br...@english-bay.com
Lines: 80
Organization: Network Services
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 20:24:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: news2.calgary.shaw.ca 1054153465 24.69.255.232
(Wed, 28 May 2003 14:24:25 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:24:25 MDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82271
Hello Dear Friends:
You may well recall last week our own Microsoft apologist - Chip Boy, aka
Sorin, asked me to comment on the allegations that SCO Unix had been
appropriated by the Linux community and that there would be reparations.
I said I thought their claims were unfounded because they refused to say
what code had been appropriated - there are other reasons as well.
Well, guess what!
It turns out that SCO doesn't even OWN that aforesaid UNIX copyrights and
patents in the first place - they still belong to Novell!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9724
Here are a couple of my favorite passages:
Letter to:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
From:
Jack L. Messman
Chairman, President and CEO
Novell
<quote>
Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO is not the owner of the
UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office
records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement
between Novell and SCO confirms it. To Novell's knowledge, the 1995
agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to
SCO the associated copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can
demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those
copyrights. Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months
you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO,
requests that Novell has rejected. Finally, we find it telling that SCO
failed to assert a claim for copyright or patent infringement against IBM.
</quote>
I stated last week that Darl was a liar.
*I TOLD YOU SO!*
So I pose the question, what exactly did Microsoft pay to SCO and what did
they really buy?
Could it be that Microsoft was just fooled into buying IP rights, sight
unseen, OR was it really just a way to fund a FUD job against Linux?
We all know how niave Microsoft lawyers are and how much they respect IP
rights...
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha...
There are certain people in newsgroup who continue to support Microsoft
blindly even when incontrovertible evidence is presented of Microsoft's
malfeasance and impropriety.
Microsoft Lies Cheats and Steals! Anybody want to dispute that?
8^)
I didn't think so.
Now, having said that I can tell you that not only is Linux eating
Microsoft's lunch in the server closet, but now most of my new work is
installing Linux KDE 3.1.2 desktops featuring OpenOffice 1.1 - The Evil
King is Dead, Long Live the New King!
Thank you.
Best regards,
Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer
From: "Sorin" <sdo...@hotmail.com>
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:01:07 +0300
Lines: 27
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <#tJDgkcJDHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: novisana.cluj.astral.ro 194.105.28.35
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!
sn-xit-09!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!sjc70.webusenet.com!
news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!msrtrans1!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!
TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82297
> Now, having said that I can tell you that not only is Linux eating
> Microsoft's lunch in the server closet, but now most of my new work is
> installing Linux KDE 3.1.2 desktops featuring OpenOffice 1.1 - The Evil
> King is Dead, Long Live the New King!
Well I wish long life to your New King too but I think the best is to live
without any kings at all. However, your king will be embraced by many people
because of his low taxes but their actual life will got worse than before.
People who used to know the integrality, integrability and the simple ease
of use of the old king's cake goodies will become frustrated by the new
pieces of unfinished bread that they will receive - it's true, for free.
When people will realize that, they wouldn't mind to work and provide
services to the society who will pay them to be able to get back to the cake
and goodies which they would not mind to pay for.
Of couse, the new king will make the old king - which is not dead - to
improve it's quality of his services, but more important, to lower its
taxes. PS: Office [that is Microsoft Office of course] prices are announced
to be lowered! Plus, better licensing, [eg. You are an employee of some
company who has bought and uses Office? Well, you'll be elligible to legally
have a copy at home of that version of Office without needing to pay a new
licence.]
Sorin
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!
sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!
sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!
residential.shaw.ca!news2.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: brian <br...@english-bay.com>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
Reply-To: br...@english-bay.com
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<#tJDgkcJDHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Lines: 100
Organization: Network Services
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <XisBa.90671$ro6.2555284@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:28:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: news2.calgary.shaw.ca 1054232887 24.69.255.232
(Thu, 29 May 2003 12:28:07 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:28:07 MDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82313
"Sorin" wrote...
> "Brian" wrote...
>> Now, having said that I can tell you that not only is Linux
>> eating Microsoft's lunch in the server closet, but now most
>> of my new work is installing Linux KDE 3.1.2 desktops
>> featuring OpenOffice 1.1 - The Evil King is Dead, Long
>> Live the New King!
> Well I wish long life to your New King too but I think the
> best is to live without any kings at all.
If you are offended, just substitute the word Microsoft for Evil King and
Linux for New King.
Microsoft is dead, long live Linux.
<mocking tone>
See... No Kings.
</mocking tone>
8^)
> However, your king will be embraced by many people because
> of his low taxes
The reasons cited for converting to Linux are many:
(1) More secure
(2) More stable
(3) Open standards
(4) No data lockin
(5) Easier licencing
(6) No mandatory audits
(7) Simpler administration
(8) Not a single vendor
(9) Superior support
(10) Open source - no secrets - no back doors
(11) Lower total cost of ownership
(12) Not affiliated with a convicted predatory monopoly
> but their actual life will got worse than before. People
> who used to know the integrality, integrability and the
> simple ease of use of the old king's cake goodies will
> become frustrated by the new pieces of unfinished bread
> that they will receive - it's true, for free.
Don't know what you are talking about ChipBoy. All of my clients that have
moved over to open source desktops have been blown away by the added
features that are missing from Microsoft desktops.
> When people will realize that, they wouldn't mind to
> work and provide services to the society who will pay
> them to be able to get back to the cake and goodies
> which they would not mind to pay for.
You are talking out of your ass ChipBoy.
The clients moving to Linux/Open Source are moving to escape from
Microsoft's high-maintenance low-performance data-lockin paradigm.
The KDE desktop is perfect for corporate desktops - no viruses, no pirated
applications, no audits, no adware and data stored in open standard format.
Clients can run database applications, browse the web, read and respond to
their email, write letters, produce spreadsheets and create presentations
and craft a vast number of multimedia/graphics formats with available open
source software.
Creating applications and content in Linux is even more efficient with
active participation between developers and authors. Nothing can compare in
the proprietary market to the speed and efficiency of the open source peer
review direct feedback method of application development.
> Of couse, the new king will make the old king - which
> is not dead - to improve it's quality of his services,
> but more important, to lower its taxes. PS: Office
> [that is Microsoft Office of course] prices are announced
> to be lowered! Plus, better licensing, [eg. You are an
> employee of some company who has bought and uses Office?
> Well, you'll be elligible to legally have a copy at home
> of that version of Office without needing to pay a new
> licence.]
Yeah but the employee will still have to buy a copy of Windows XP to run
that office suite.
Now, why don't you get back to your busy day of wondering why the butterfly
wings don't flap in some crippled MSN application - we all know how
important that is.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha...
You must be so proud.
8^)
Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer
From: "Sorin" <sdo...@hotmail.com>
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<#tJDgkcJDHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<XisBa.90671$ro6.2555284@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:49:46 +0300
Lines: 97
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <ORAg4$nJDHA.1608@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: novisana.cluj.astral.ro 194.105.28.35
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!
sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!msrtrans1!
TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82343
I will ignore nonsenses.
> The reasons cited for converting to Linux are many:
>
> (1) More secure
> (2) More stable
> (3) Open standards
> (4) No data lockin
> (5) Easier licencing
> (6) No mandatory audits
> (7) Simpler administration
> (8) Not a single vendor
> (9) Superior support
> (10) Open source - no secrets - no back doors
> (11) Lower total cost of ownership
> (12) Not affiliated with a convicted predatory monopoly
I may agree (5), (9), and strongly agree (10). I disagree the others.
(1) - Microsoft efforts to make secure software are very high. Linux is not
that secure, as many flaws were found lately. When (if) people would use
Linux in their majority, you'll found at least as many bugs in Linux and
Linux software as in Windows or Windows software. Incresing the number of
"players" in the developers team makes a product even more vulnerable.
(2) - Since Windows 2000, very good stability was reached for the Microsoft
OS, and for their other servers.
(3) - XML/SOAP/web services are open standards (W3C) which Microsoft now
uses all over their software. The .NET is the future and the .NET is open
standards based.
(4) - XML again.
(5) -
>
> > but their actual life will got worse than before. People
> > who used to know the integrality, integrability and the
> > simple ease of use of the old king's cake goodies will
> > become frustrated by the new pieces of unfinished bread
> > that they will receive - it's true, for free.
>
> Don't know what you are talking about ChipBoy. All of my clients that have
> moved over to open source desktops have been blown away by the added
> features that are missing from Microsoft desktops.
>
> > When people will realize that, they wouldn't mind to
> > work and provide services to the society who will pay
> > them to be able to get back to the cake and goodies
> > which they would not mind to pay for.
>
> You are talking out of your ass ChipBoy.
>
> The clients moving to Linux/Open Source are moving to escape from
> Microsoft's high-maintenance low-performance data-lockin paradigm.
>
> The KDE desktop is perfect for corporate desktops - no viruses, no pirated
> applications, no audits, no adware and data stored in open standard
format.
>
> Clients can run database applications, browse the web, read and respond to
> their email, write letters, produce spreadsheets and create presentations
> and craft a vast number of multimedia/graphics formats with available open
> source software.
>
> Creating applications and content in Linux is even more efficient with
> active participation between developers and authors. Nothing can compare
in
> the proprietary market to the speed and efficiency of the open source peer
> review direct feedback method of application development.
>
> > Of couse, the new king will make the old king - which
> > is not dead - to improve it's quality of his services,
> > but more important, to lower its taxes. PS: Office
> > [that is Microsoft Office of course] prices are announced
> > to be lowered! Plus, better licensing, [eg. You are an
> > employee of some company who has bought and uses Office?
> > Well, you'll be elligible to legally have a copy at home
> > of that version of Office without needing to pay a new
> > licence.]
>
> Yeah but the employee will still have to buy a copy of Windows XP to run
> that office suite.
>
> Now, why don't you get back to your busy day of wondering why the
butterfly
> wings don't flap in some crippled MSN application - we all know how
> important that is.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahaha...
>
> You must be so proud.
>
> 8^)
>
> Brian
> Linux Mystic
> open sorcerer
>
From: "Sorin" <sdo...@hotmail.com>
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<#tJDgkcJDHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<XisBa.90671$ro6.2555284@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<ORAg4$nJDHA.1608@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:09:36 +0300
Lines: 161
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <OsOOVsoJDHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: novisana.cluj.astral.ro 194.105.28.35
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!
small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!
TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82347
Sorry had to go and posted immediately without finishing.
> (1) More secure
> (2) More stable
> (3) Open standards
> (4) No data lockin
> (5) Easier licencing
> (6) No mandatory audits
> (7) Simpler administration
> (8) Not a single vendor
> (9) Superior support
> (10) Open source - no secrets - no back doors
> (11) Lower total cost of ownership
> (12) Not affiliated with a convicted predatory monopoly
I may agree (5), (9), and strongly agree (10). I disagree the others.
(1) - Microsoft efforts to make secure software are very high. Linux is not
that secure, as many flaws were found lately. When (if) people would use
Linux in their majority, you'll found at least as many bugs in Linux and
Linux software as in Windows or Windows software. Incresing the number of
"players" in the developers team makes a product even more vulnerable.
(2) - Since Windows 2000, very good stability was reached for the Microsoft
OS, and for their other servers.
(3) - XML/SOAP/web services are open standards (W3C) which Microsoft now
uses all over their software. The .NET is the future and the .NET is open
standards based.
(4) - XML again.
(5) - Microsoft is working to provide better licensing too.
(6) - Neither demonstrated audits from Ms and no reasons for them to do such
audits at public masses.
(7) - No way Linux simpler to administer than Microsoft OSs! Linux is a hell
when something goes wrong.
(8) - So what? That's a reason?
(9) - I agree that Ms Support is not the best yet. I hope they improve it.
(10) - OK if you're a freek and do not trust a company from which you bought
the product. The companies don't sell product which backdoors or viruses
etc. just because they need their clients. If you're a freek client you'll
always think the company could have sell you a virus. If you're not, you're
ok without (10). But for you, I agree (10).
(11) - No way. When something goes wrong you need Linux engineers which cost
very much.
(12) - Monopoly laws should take care of the business if it developes
monopolical behaviours. No problem for me to buy from the best. But people
ususally think incorrectly that the best is always monopolist. Not the case.
Reasons to go with Microsoft: best integration between components, ease of
use, integral future vision.
--
Sorin
"Sorin" <sdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ORAg4$nJDHA.1608@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I will ignore nonsenses.
>
> > The reasons cited for converting to Linux are many:
> >
> > (1) More secure
> > (2) More stable
> > (3) Open standards
> > (4) No data lockin
> > (5) Easier licencing
> > (6) No mandatory audits
> > (7) Simpler administration
> > (8) Not a single vendor
> > (9) Superior support
> > (10) Open source - no secrets - no back doors
> > (11) Lower total cost of ownership
> > (12) Not affiliated with a convicted predatory monopoly
>
> I may agree (5), (9), and strongly agree (10). I disagree the others.
> (1) - Microsoft efforts to make secure software are very high. Linux is
not
> that secure, as many flaws were found lately. When (if) people would use
> Linux in their majority, you'll found at least as many bugs in Linux and
> Linux software as in Windows or Windows software. Incresing the number of
> "players" in the developers team makes a product even more vulnerable.
> (2) - Since Windows 2000, very good stability was reached for the
Microsoft
> OS, and for their other servers.
> (3) - XML/SOAP/web services are open standards (W3C) which Microsoft now
> uses all over their software. The .NET is the future and the .NET is open
> standards based.
> (4) - XML again.
> (5) -
>
> >
> > > but their actual life will got worse than before. People
> > > who used to know the integrality, integrability and the
> > > simple ease of use of the old king's cake goodies will
> > > become frustrated by the new pieces of unfinished bread
> > > that they will receive - it's true, for free.
> >
> > Don't know what you are talking about ChipBoy. All of my clients that
have
> > moved over to open source desktops have been blown away by the added
> > features that are missing from Microsoft desktops.
> >
> > > When people will realize that, they wouldn't mind to
> > > work and provide services to the society who will pay
> > > them to be able to get back to the cake and goodies
> > > which they would not mind to pay for.
> >
> > You are talking out of your ass ChipBoy.
> >
> > The clients moving to Linux/Open Source are moving to escape from
> > Microsoft's high-maintenance low-performance data-lockin paradigm.
> >
> > The KDE desktop is perfect for corporate desktops - no viruses, no
pirated
> > applications, no audits, no adware and data stored in open standard
> format.
> >
> > Clients can run database applications, browse the web, read and respond
to
> > their email, write letters, produce spreadsheets and create
presentations
> > and craft a vast number of multimedia/graphics formats with available
open
> > source software.
> >
> > Creating applications and content in Linux is even more efficient with
> > active participation between developers and authors. Nothing can compare
> in
> > the proprietary market to the speed and efficiency of the open source
peer
> > review direct feedback method of application development.
> >
> > > Of couse, the new king will make the old king - which
> > > is not dead - to improve it's quality of his services,
> > > but more important, to lower its taxes. PS: Office
> > > [that is Microsoft Office of course] prices are announced
> > > to be lowered! Plus, better licensing, [eg. You are an
> > > employee of some company who has bought and uses Office?
> > > Well, you'll be elligible to legally have a copy at home
> > > of that version of Office without needing to pay a new
> > > licence.]
> >
> > Yeah but the employee will still have to buy a copy of Windows XP to run
> > that office suite.
> >
> > Now, why don't you get back to your busy day of wondering why the
> butterfly
> > wings don't flap in some crippled MSN application - we all know how
> > important that is.
> >
> > Bwahahahahahahahahaha...
> >
> > You must be so proud.
> >
> > 8^)
> >
> > Brian
> > Linux Mystic
> > open sorcerer
> >
>
>
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!
sn-xit-08!supernews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!
news2.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: brian <br...@english-bay.com>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
Reply-To: br...@english-bay.com
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<#tJDgkcJDHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
<XisBa.90671$ro6.2555284@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<ORAg4$nJDHA.1608@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>
<OsOOVsoJDHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>
Lines: 188
Organization: Network Services
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <ycGBa.95015$ro6.2713072@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:17:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: news2.calgary.shaw.ca 1054289822 24.69.255.232
(Fri, 30 May 2003 04:17:02 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 04:17:02 MDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82349
Sorin wrote:
> Sorry had to go and posted immediately without finishing.
>> (1) More secure
>> (2) More stable
>> (3) Open standards
>> (4) No data lockin
>> (5) Easier licencing
>> (6) No mandatory audits
>> (7) Simpler administration
>> (8) Not a single vendor
>> (9) Superior support
>> (10) Open source - no secrets - no back doors
>> (11) Lower total cost of ownership
>> (12) Not affiliated with a convicted predatory monopoly
> I may agree (5), (9), and strongly agree (10)
> . I disagree the others.
> (1) - Microsoft efforts to make secure software are very high.
Bull Droppings!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9736
That is just this week!
Let us not forget the .NET Passport security breach that would give anyone
access to anyones account including secure identity and credit information.
Opps.
Do you have ANYTHING other than your saying so to back up your stupid
assessment?
> Linux is not that secure, as many flaws were found lately.
No there isn't.
Prove it ChipBoy!
> When (if) people would use Linux in their majority, you'll
> found at least as many bugs in Linux and Linux software as
> in Windows or Windows software. Incresing the number of
> "players" in the developers team makes a product even more
> vulnerable.
Horse droppings!
> (2) - Since Windows 2000, very good stability was reached
> for the Microsoft OS, and for their other servers.
Perhaps Windows is more stable than it used to be but it still doesn't hold
a candle to Linux - especially in the server closet.
> (3) - XML/SOAP/web services are open standards (W3C) which
> Microsoft now uses all over their software. The .NET is the
> future and the .NET is open standards based.
,NET is dead - nobody in their right mind trusts Microsoft technology or
Microsoft - too many failures, compromises and vulnerabilities.
> (4) - XML again.
Microsoft is not making their Office data structure open.
If you believe otherwise - publish your source.
> (5) - Microsoft is working to provide better licensing
> too.
Still sucks!
Have you EVER read the EULA? Have you read the open source GPL?
Now you tell me which is rights-sucking and parasitic?
> (6) - Neither demonstrated audits from Ms and no reasons
> for them to do such audits at public masses.
I don't know what you are talking about but the news servers are replete
with stories of companies, schools and even non-profit societies &
charities being attacked by Microsoft and their BSA goons.
Do you ever read the news?
You don't seem to have a clue.
> (7) - No way Linux simpler to administer than Microsoft
> OSs! Linux is a hell when something goes wrong.
Say's you. The only reason you say that is because you are too lazy to learn
anything about a different and superior system paradigm.
It is so much easier to administer Linux because much of the utility is
modular - kill a process, replace the binary, restart the process - total
piece of cake.
> (8) - So what? That's a reason?
A very important reason.
You are a very simple person if you can't understand that a single vendor
for any vital component is extremely risky - that single vendor may take
advantage of the situation and drive the price up to over 85% profit and
higher.
Wait a minute...
8^)
> (9) - I agree that Ms Support is not the best yet.
> I hope they improve it.
You do?
I must say Microsoft support in the early 90s was exceptional - perhaps only
Word Perfect had a better support system in place.
It has been on a steady decline ever since.
What makes you think it will get better?
> (10) - OK if you're a freek and do not trust a company
> from which you bought the product. The companies don't
> sell product which backdoors or viruses etc. just
> because they need their clients. If you're a freek
> client you'll always think the company could have
> sell you a virus. If you're not, you're ok without
In a recent survey 70% of American customers indicated they did not trust
Microsoft.
It is a corrupt anti-competitive predatory monopoly! Microsoft just today
admitted to anti-competitive activities as regards AOL and Netscape and
will pay AOL $750 million dollars and will share technology with AOL.
Why do you trust Microsoft? You must be stupid to ignore the overhwelming
evidence of Microsoft crimes and improprieties.
> (11) - No way. When something goes wrong you need Linux engineers which
> cost very much.
More horse droppings.
I have personally had the assistance of senior project team members working
on problems on my installations and have never had to pay for the
priviledge.
Why don't you support your ignorant ranting with some cites.
> (12) - Monopoly laws should take care of the business
> if it developes monopolical behaviours.
It did but Microssoft just bought it's way out of it's predicament.
Microsoft has so much money and power that they can afford to buy political
influence right up to the White House.
> No problem for me to buy from the best.
There is a sucker born every minute - fortunately for Microsoft.
> But people ususally think incorrectly that the
> best is always monopolist. Not the case.
Who says that, ChipBoy?
> Reasons to go with Microsoft: best integration between
> components, ease of use, integral future vision.
I disagree on all counts.
Microsoft has a very poor record of making data types accessible beyond
certain version boundaries - this is a method of forcing Microsoft Office
upgrades even when not required.
Microsoft has very little vision and very poor record of original
development. What they can't steal, they buy and then use their monopoly
position to supress honest competition.
I am sorry Sorin but you are just ignorant and uninformed.
Perhaps when get those chips in our heads we will see things much
differently.
8^)
From: "moosensquirrel" <not@earthslink.zzz>
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:51:57 -0400
Lines: 64
Organization: Do unto MS before Bill does it to you
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <utoSXNsJDHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: dpc69193186.direcpc.com 69.19.3.186
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!
sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newshosting.com!
news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82380
Microsoft's new Linux gambit
By Charles Cooper=20
May 30, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
Listen closely to what Microsoft is not saying about SCO Group's open-sourc=
e operetta.=20
Microsoft is not telling corporate managers that the use of open-source app=
lications might land them in hot water with patent attorneys. And Microsoft=
is not saying that the open-source development community is a hotbed of mi=
sappropriation of private property.=20
This is not because Microsoft disagrees with the above. But it's just so mu=
ch easier to give the dirty work to SCO.=20
Ever since SCO filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM for allegedly mi=
sappropriating Unix technology that wound up in the Linux operating system,=
rumors have been rife about Microsoft secretly bankrolling the litigation.=
Oliver Stone has yet to uncover a connection, but conspiracy buffs who alr=
eady see the hand of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates everywhere have since se=
ized upon Microsoft's deal, announced last earlier this month, to license U=
nix technology from SCO.=20
Two points to note:=20
. If SCO is successful, the lawsuit could undercut the gathering momentum b=
ehind Linux. Microsoft would have a field day if a court finds that the Lin=
ux operating system contains misappropriated code.=20
. At the very least, the litigation creates a cloud of uncertainty in the m=
inds of information technology managers who are considering using open-sour=
ce software. The last thing that a chief information officer wants right no=
w is to have to explain to the chief executive why the company's cool new c=
omputer system could result in a huge legal tab.=20
The deal formally allies Microsoft with a company intent on frightening the=
open-source community into submission. Best of all, the Department of Just=
ice can't accuse Microsoft of putting the muscle on corporate Linux users. =
Fresh from smoking the peace pipe with Uncle Sam, the last thing that Micro=
soft CEO Steve Ballmer needs is his minions to demonstrate anything that sm=
acks of bully boy behavior. Meanwhile, SCO can get away with the rough stuf=
f, while the Redmondians safely hug the moral high ground. ("Oh my, but did=
you know that code embedded within Linux may have been stolen?") It's the =
best of both worlds.=20
Relieved from playing the role of the heavy--at least for now--Microsoft is=
free to campaign against Linux. In part, this involves playing up the perc=
eived advantages for companies that build their business applications on Wi=
ndows. But looping back to SCO's contention about stolen code, Microsoft su=
rely will also focus on the benefits of a development model in which a sing=
le company controls what goes into the software kernel. (The not-so-subtle =
message being: Go with Windows and avoid getting sued one day for infringin=
g someone else's patent.)=20
It's too soon to know whether this will be enough to convince IT managers t=
o stay away from Linux. So far, Microsoft has failed to invent a sure-fire =
strategy to check the advance of the Penguinistas. A cynic might conclude t=
hat what's going on now is less about the protection of intellectual proper=
ty and more about spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. The question of il=
legality will ultimately get resolved in the courts. In the meantime, Micro=
soft is notching up a tactical win.=20
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!
sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!
residential.shaw.ca!news3.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: brian <br...@english-bay.com>
Subject: Re: SCO allegations unfounded...
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
Reply-To: br...@english-bay.com
References: <ZV8Ba.84117$ro6.2332757@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
<utoSXNsJDHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>
Lines: 105
Organization: Network Services
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <YuPBa.98135$3C2.3068415@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:51:04 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: news3.calgary.shaw.ca 1054327864 24.69.255.232
(Fri, 30 May 2003 14:51:04 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:51:04 MDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:82394
moosensquirrel wrote:
> Microsoft's new Linux gambit
> By Charles Cooper
> May 30, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
<clipped for brevity>
Excellent article as far as it goes.
One very significant datum which continues to get lost in the continuing
battle is that SCO refuses to reveal what code has supposedly migrated into
the open source community.
Let us suppose there is code that could be found in both Unix and Linux
kernel sources - that does not even begin to suggest impropriety and here
is why:
(1) Every automobile is the creation of it's designers and builders and as
such there is significant proprietary technology in modern cars. However,
for the most part, many components are generic commodity off the shelf
items. What that means is that although Mercedes may have Intellectual
Property rights as far as it's anti-lock brake system but it has no
exclusive rights to the generic design of it's brake pads or even the
concept of disc brakes.
During the mid 90's there were the famous BSD lawsuits where AT&T sued the
University of California over the distribution of it's Intellectual
Property in the form of Unix source code. The problem was much of the
original Unix source code had been independently rewritten and improved by
the entire Unix user base and had been turned back to the company as added
value. To make a long story short, Novell, which bought all rights and
title to Unix from AT&T during this debacle, settled with the University
and it required the removal of only a couple dozen lines of proprietary
code and everything else was deemed to be public domain.
Now all the code continued to be used by Novell and then SCO as subsequent
owner. The question becomes; What code is SCO talking about - the public
domain code that is not their exclusive property? Or are they talking about
something else?
(2) If the code that has migrated over into the Linux codebase does in truth
really belong to the SCO Group, WHY AREN'T THEY TELLING US SO WE CAN REMOVE
IT? As has been discussed many times, every single line of code that finds
it's way into the Linux kernel is heavily documented and it will be no
problem to isolate who put it there. By not revealing what code SCO claims
to own, they are actually preventing the open source community from
repairing the damage by removing the offending code. By preventing us from
mitigating the damage, they are also cutting themselves out of any monetary
damages especially punitive measures. How can we be punished if we didn't
know AND they won't tell us what we are doing wrong?
This is not a case of ignorance of the law - we all have a pretty good idea
how property works. What we are talking about is itemizing the actual
offense so it can be corrected. You can't walk into somebodies house and
demand they stop using their kitchen because something in there may be
stolen property.
One thing is absolutely certain - SCO will not benefit from it's actions in
any legitimate fashion.
How about illegitimate means? How about extorting money from large Linux
deployers that do not wish to become embroiled in a pissing contest with a
skunk? Well, the only outfit that has publicly stood up and admitted to
buying a Unix IP license is Microsoft who is NOT in the Unix business.
Microsoft!
Let's review dear friends. Microsoft is losing a war with the open source
movement not only in the IT closet but Linux is now gaining significant
traction on the desktop - it is a case where good enough is good enough and
most developers are starting active Linux development of new projects as
well as the porting existing applications.
Microsoft which has gained it's market leadership position with a track
record of dirty tricks, theft of code, outright lying and deception. This
is the predatory monopoly that raved all through the 90's that Unix was
dead. This is the shining citizen respectful of others IP rights buying a
Unix license from SCO - funding them for the first time in their business
history into a positive cash flow.
Microsoft has the motive, the means and the opportunity to engage Linux in a
massive FUD campaign all the while sitting on the sidelines as a respecter
of IP rights. If this were a criminal case, Microsoft would be in jail
without bail, repeat offender, awaiting trial and punishment.
This is not some elaborate complicated conspiracy theory - it is so bold and
fool proof that few will believe Microsoft would or could actually pull it
off. That is beauty of it!
One thing is abundantly clear, SCO will not benefit legitimately from this
escapade. The second thing is that aside from the FUD value, the real
effect on the Linux community will be small - if anything adversity like
this will truly serve to pull the community together even tighter.
Lastly, I do not believe that Microsoft will gain significantly from their
actions because although nothing may be proved, most will acknowledge that
Microsoft is probably up to it's old tricks and this will sew further
distrust into their relationships - nobody trusts a cheater!
Best regards,
Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer