On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 02:29 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> I don't really care about your point, and you're missing mine. For the
> sake of this thread, I couldn't care less who did what to whom or who
> was at fault. _My_ point is that this is another instance where you make
> broad, sweeping statements that don't square with what I've heard/read,
> and _seem_ to rely on some sort of private knowledge.
Dude, I could not be more _specific_ on the _intimate_details_ on the
relationship and partnership IBM and SCO had. Right now you have a lot
of people saying "SCO is greedy" and I'm trying to provide the history
of events that lead up to all this.
Take it or leave it, it's your choice. But just because I'm in the
minority doesn't mean I'm incorrect.
> I'm not saying you're making things up. I'm merely saying that if you're
> going to make statements like this, you really should provide more
> verifiable background information to support your statements.
I can't help that 99% of people are ignoring Project Monterey and the
market reality and resulting moves by IBM made once Caldera bought SCO.
It's not "sexy" to the IT media unless it's about Linux. If it's a
"boring" contract dispute, as Linux, ESR and many others _tried_ to get
the IT media to recognize in March and April, before SCO expanded the
lawsuit, then you can run off and be a mindless
There is countless information out there. Project Monterey was a
private agreement, but in the court transcripts, there are numerous
clauses that have come out. I also provided the 2003 September
interview with Ransom Love in eWeek that basically spells out a lot of
the detail I've already been giving. It was a real vindication when
this came out because people had been dismissing what I had said
earlier.
Whether or not you agree with me is not the point. My point has
continually been that IBM is no more of our friend than SCO. Sure, IBM
has made some great pro-GPL comments in the lawsuit, and they should be
commended for that. And SCO continues to get far worse and off-the-
path.
But the history is very factual. You can start with the Love interview
and start doing some research based on his comments. Stuff I've already
known since I have been following Monterey since not only Day 1 of its
announcement, but the rumors prior. Especially since IBM dismissed
Linux as a platform until the other database vendors came around and
basically gave them the market reason. And the reason why the other
database vendors came around wasn't so much of a belief in Linux, but
Microsoft forbidding OEMs from bundling anything but MSSQL with Windows
Servers.
My statements have been _anything_but_broad_ in comparison to not only
the comments I see made on LUG lists, but in the IT media.
> Otherwise, it's another, "Oh no, Bryan's gone off again. Who knows
> where he comes up with this stuff?"
That's fine. The funny thing is that I don't get my job offers from the
majority of people who don't like my ideas because they "aren't
popular," it's the rare, silent subscribers who contact me off-list and
say, "I watched everything happen like you said over the last few years,
and you're the first person to explain exactly why."
> Don't assume everyone's read all the filings or all
> the tech journals. In addition, you frequently make the statement that
> the press gets things way wrong. I'll grant that the press is wrong a
> lot, but _that_ wrong and _that_ often? After a while, I wonder who's
> really wrong: the journalists or you.
You assume I'm not a journalist myself. ;->
Ziff-Davis used me as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on Linux in
1998-1999. They mis-quoted me several times, because they aren't
interested in "accuracy," they are interested in "sexy." Several fellow
Ziff-Davis authors/sources have constantly complained of the editors
changing content and, especially, the titles to appeal to CIOs.
I have written for CMP Media Publications over the last 3 years because
CMP has integrity that Ziff-Davis does not.
> It's kind of like when Jack Horner comes out and says, "Well of course,
> all dinosaurs were warm blooded." And the whole rest of the
> paleontologists in the world are very clear about the fact that they
> were strictly cold blooded, just like the birds and reptiles with whom
> they share an overwhelming number of other characteristics.
Yes, that's how the media is. They are like Jack Horner and in many
cases provide _opinions_ without a _shred_ of fact. I have laid down
fact after fact after fact on Monterey, the reasons why Caldera bought
SCO and the IBM double-cross. Very, very few in the media have done the
same.
Why? Because it's not "sexy."
> It doesn't take long to wonder what Jack's smoking on those long digs
> in Montana and the Gobi.
> More on-topic, I'm not sure who actually believes IBM is this benign
> benefactor for the Linux movement. It should have been clear to everyone
> from day one that IBM operates in IBM's best interests, like any other
> company. If that happens to coincide with Linux for a while, so much the
> better for us. But when the day comes that they feel that using our OS
> isn't in their best interests, they'll drop us like a hot rock. Maybe
> the press thinks IBM is the demi-god of Linux, but I don't think anyone
> else does.
Agreed.
> Unless I miss something, IBM's agenda is fairly transparent.
Agreed.
> 1. They've been operating under the onus of Microsoft for a long time.
> They'd like a way to be free of this burden.
> 2. Linux is the first OS that runs on virtually all their platforms, and
> they didn't have to spend a dime to reap that benefit. They can sell it
> to customers as a bottom-up, turnkey solution.
> 3. Linux people are in positions of influence in many many companies
> around the world. Not as CIOs, but as lower level people who move Linux
> in through the back door and eventually usher it in through the front.
> It's wise to make nice with us, since IBM hardware and consulting
> services could escort Linux in.
> 4. IBM exists to sell hardware and consulting services and make googobs
> of money, as well as maintain their stock price. Whatever assists that
> is a good idea. Software is secondary to IBM. They sell hardware and
> consulting. They could _give_ the software away and still make money.
> 5. IBM has more patents than anyone else in the world, and can afford
> the most expensive (and best) lawyers in the world, anywhere in the
> world. Translation = they have about the biggest sticks you can find.
> And they have no compunction about using them against perceived
> roadblocks.
> Given all this, who in their right mind wouldn't believe that IBM's
> current love affair with Linux is anything more than a temporary fling?
> And who wouldn't believe that under different circumstances, IBM
> wouldn't hesitate to crush the whole Open Source movement? It's not
> rocket science, just common sense.
>
> SCO? Their case was never very good,
I disagree very much so, and if you've read the rulings, SCO v. IBM is
getting a lot of pro-SCO findings so far. Not on the details of Linux,
SCO has had set-backs there.
But anything that puts the spotlight on how IBM has been benefiting from
AIX 5L and their Linux endeavors, that's the info SCO is getting. Even
in the broadest of cases.
> and they've badly mishandled it.
The Linux community gave them the avenue to do it. I don't blame them.
> They'll be lucky if they survive financially long enough to see this
> case through to the end. And they violated some golden rules of
> business: never put all your eggs in one basket,
They weren't, or didn't you know why Caldera bought SCO?
IBM left them with 1 basket.
If you mean the lawsuit, Caldera-SCO was _over_ as a software company.
They were out of money, so the courts were all that were left.
> and never trust someone
> who's got the wherewithall to eat you for breakfast; always have a
> backup plan and an exit strategy-- gold plated and ironclad.
Agreed. But IBM is going to be the big, bad company in the jury's eyes.
> And of course, they screwed with the wrong community. ;-}
Actually, the Linux community was very rabid instead of stopping to
realize what SCO was actually doing. In fact, because so many blindly
called for the end of SCO v. IBM that both SCO and IBM _knew_ they had 1
positioning to take.
Had everyone not made it into the Linux IP non-sense, then IBM might
have settled, and even if it hadn't, it would have been much harder for
SCO to put up the Linux IP "smokescreen."
The community's rabid response, despite sound statements that it was a
contract dispute from most of its leaders, was its undoing. And the IT
media ate it up.
And the level of distain I have received because of my views of SCO v.
IBM have only shown this to be the case.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- Community software is all about choice, choice of technology. Unfortunately, too many Linux advocates port over the so-called "choice" from the commercial software world, brand name marketing. The result is false assumptions, failure to focus on the real technical similarities, but loyalty to blind vendor alignments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:03:03 EDT