Open Source Mythology -- http://opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html

[Bill Huey (hui)]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:05:40AM -0500, Gary Thorpe wrote:
> I think the URL in the subject sums up quiet nicely the various 
> arguments people have conjured up to say SCO is "attacking" Linux. 
> Regardless of the validity of SCO's claim, this is simply false. If it 
> were true, SCO would be suing Linus Torvalds and not a mega-corporation. 
> It would be much easier to brow beat/bankrupt an individual instead of 
> fighting the world's largest computer company.

They are suing Linus Torvalds, they're harassing the entire Linux community
because their corporate body can't compete or change with the times. It's
the same reason why the BSDs have a substantially minor role in the open
source community relative to Linux. Linux latched onto something, has decent
leadership and the combination of which has fueled something that the BSD
could never do. And that's work together without having egos get in the way
of development and production/technical inclusion in that community. That
IRC teenager mentality of running a project is why the FreeBSD-current is
crap since they pissed on badly needed senior level talent need to do SMP
and related work, empowering the least functional folks into single places
of responsibility that they never should have had in a legitimate meritocracy.

> I am really annoyed at open source advocates jumping in on an issue that 
> doesn't concern them directly. What is worse i those who jump in 

They're harassing and attacking the entire community, BSD and Linux, so this
effects both my livelihood and others. Their claims look over extended,
baseless and vague at best. They'll get murdered in court from what I
can see.

> seem to completely mystified at what SCO is actually claiming. The 
> actual text of the claim is quiet clear and easily understandable and I 
> encourage everyone to actually READ it FIRST, then read the "rebuttal" 
> posted by the advocates. In my opinion, anyone who claims SCO doesn't 
> own UNIX and has no right to license it to IBM is smoking too much of a 
> certain illegal substance. The issue is what IBM did or did not do.

First of all, this isn't a court of law. It's stupid techical mailing list
that we use to communicate with folks of similar interests. Arguing this
isn't going to get any where since it's ultimately under the court of law
and we as developers have little or no say this. It's also an annoying
thread that's gotten out of control by constant "beating into the ground"
senselessly. I'd wish you'd do the same as I, and just wait and see what
happens. No sense in talking about it until then.

ok, back to work. :)

bill