UNIX Love of Ransom: Proprietary hypePhone, Novell, SCO
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-07-11 23:17:51 UTC
Modified: 2010-07-11 23:17:51 UTC
Summary: The story of three UNIX/proprietary software companies (Apple, Novell, and SCO)
WE would like to recommend the latest episode of Linux Outlaws, which ends with some smashing characterisation of hypePhone proponents (skip to the last 5 minutes or so).
hypePhone 4 is "Not For Every Tom, Dick & Harry", but based on personal experience here in Manchester, many people buy the hypePhone because it's a culture item; even people who are hardly able to afford it eventually buy one for the same reason some people sell the house or take a mortgage to buy a sports car. A lot of the time (not always) owning an hypePhone is making a statement about one's social status.
Over the past year or so Novell has done a great deal not just to promote Mono but also to promote Apple products like the hypePhone. We gave many examples. Former senior staff of Novell even blogs and brags about buying Apple products. As for Novell, last week too it only advertised proprietary software [1, 2]. Novell's days as a company that promotes Free software are long over and it now seems more like Xandros, which faded into oblivion.
SCO has filed a motion to stay taxation of costs until after the appeal they just filed notice that they plan to pursue. If you are getting that deja vu feeling, you're right. They did this the last time too. It's almost word for word the same. The last time, Novell opposed, and Judge Kimball denied SCO's motion, ruling that "the court does not believe that a party's speculation as to the possibility of the underlying judgment being reversed on appeal is a valid reason for delaying a determination of costs."
This is not a fight over Linux. It's about who owns UNIX, but Novell uses it for PR purposes by portraying this as Novell fighting for Linux. Apple too uses UNIX. ⬆
Lawfare powered by slop companies (including Microsoft) from America, targetting British people who consistently oppose slop because it's objectively terrible
Time will tell is there are investigative journalists out there who will quit parroting Microsoft (e.g. false layoff figures) and relying on LLMs controlled by Microsoft to spew out false "facts" for them
If Microsoft admits that slop is too expensive and is for "entertainment purposes" because it cannot be relied upon, why would anyone other than the pushers and profiteers still insist that slop bears potential?
