IBM Exec: "Forces" at work against Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Herman Melville, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. IBM seems to be naming names and pointing the finger......

    ********************************************************

    IBM exec: 'Forces' at work against Linux

    By Andrew Colley
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    July 30, 2003, 12:57 PM PT

    An IBM executive has claimed that a "set of forces" is attempting to derail
    Linux, and hinted that Microsoft and SCO Group are among those responsible.

    Al Zollar, a general manager of sales for IBM eServer iSeries, told
    delegates attending the company's Asia Pacific Strategic Planning
    Conference in Queensland, Australia, on Tuesday that a "set of forces" was
    attempting to stymie adoption of the open-source operating system.

    "They're mostly located in Redmond, although they have recruited a few
    allies," said Zollar. Microsoft has its headquarters in Redmond, Wash.

    ....the rest is on the web site.
     
    Herman Melville, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Herman Melville

    The Flash Guest

    The thing I have found is that IBM cares about IBM and nothing else, people
    have to remember that if the an option arises that is good for IBM but
    screws every other linux / Unix / Microsoft user in the world IBM will grab
    it instantly.

    I have a contact in IBM who is very high on the ladder (Not in NZ), he has a
    large amount of Sony equipment (digital cam, micro palmtop, cell phone
    organize etc) Company policy is such that although at his level he can do
    almost as he pleases, pressure is applied to 'Think IBM' and go with the
    policy of not having any non IBM products displayed in his office. He has
    also commented repeatedly that there is a almost pathological hatred towards
    Microsoft that has grown in strength over the last 5 years. (He has been
    with IBM for >20 years)

    IBM and Microsoft it seems believe that Litigation is the first step of
    negotiation, rather than open source it is open wallets that IBM and
    Microsoft want.

    If people think that IBM is supporting Linux due to moral and good business
    practices they should look a lot closer. IBM is a profit driven company and
    they will use any method to hook clients into z/OS , 0s/390, aix or any of
    their proprietary os's.

    "Herman Melville" <> wrote in message
    news:CZZVa.8399$...
    >
    > IBM seems to be naming names and pointing the finger......
    >
    > ********************************************************
    >
    > IBM exec: 'Forces' at work against Linux
    >
    > By Andrew Colley
    > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > July 30, 2003, 12:57 PM PT
    >
    > An IBM executive has claimed that a "set of forces" is attempting to

    derail
    > Linux, and hinted that Microsoft and SCO Group are among those

    responsible.
    >
    > Al Zollar, a general manager of sales for IBM eServer iSeries, told
    > delegates attending the company's Asia Pacific Strategic Planning
    > Conference in Queensland, Australia, on Tuesday that a "set of forces" was
    > attempting to stymie adoption of the open-source operating system.
    >
    > "They're mostly located in Redmond, although they have recruited a few
    > allies," said Zollar. Microsoft has its headquarters in Redmond, Wash.
    >
    > ...the rest is on the web site.
     
    The Flash, Jul 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thus spake The Flash:
    > He has
    > also commented repeatedly that there is a almost pathological hatred towards
    > Microsoft that has grown in strength over the last 5 years. (He has been
    > with IBM for >20 years)


    I find that cheering :) It's only human nature. IBM had it's nose rubbed
    in failure many times by Microsoft.

    It's interesting to see things hotting up again. The good thing is that
    this time round the ship won't go down when IBM gives up (thanks, GPL).

    Also, don't forget that IBM was forced to play fair a while back when
    they lost a major anti-trust case.

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    http://homepages.visp.co.nz/~aaronlawrence
    ...Gross Ignorance: 144 times worse than ordinary ignorance.
     
    Aaron Lawrence, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Herman Melville

    T.N.O Guest

    "Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote
    | What they found was that being a midle-sized fish in a very large pond was
    | far more profitable than being the largest/only fish in a small one.
    |
    | Something that MS has yet to learn...
    |

    Maybe MS hasn't reached that limit yet?
     
    T.N.O, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. The Flash allegedly said:

    > If people think that IBM is supporting Linux due to moral and good
    > business practices they should look a lot closer. IBM is a profit driven
    > company and they will use any method to hook clients into z/OS , 0s/390,
    > aix or any of their proprietary os's.


    IBM, for now, is a Linux ally with deep pockets.

    With Mr. Bill gunning for Linux 9and don't think he isn't), Tux could use
    some friends with both resources and organisation.
     
    Herman Melville, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:18:04 +1200, Aaron Lawrence wrote:

    > I find that cheering :) It's only human nature. IBM had it's nose rubbed
    > in failure many times by Microsoft.


    In the case of DOS4, that failure was Microsoft's.

    MS said Dos3 was end of the line. IBM developed extensions and showed it
    to MS, MS promptly stole the alpha-quality code and sold it as MSDOS 4.0

    > It's interesting to see things hotting up again. The good thing is that
    > this time round the ship won't go down when IBM gives up (thanks, GPL).
    >
    > Also, don't forget that IBM was forced to play fair a while back when they
    > lost a major anti-trust case.


    The restrictions on them are mostly lapsed now - that case was in the 1960s

    What they found was that being a midle-sized fish in a very large pond was
    far more profitable than being the largest/only fish in a small one.

    Something that MS has yet to learn...
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jul 31, 2003
    #6
  7. Herman Melville

    The Flash Guest

    "Herman Melville" <> wrote in message
    news:FL7Wa.8525$...
    > The Flash allegedly said:
    >
    > > If people think that IBM is supporting Linux due to moral and good
    > > business practices they should look a lot closer. IBM is a profit driven
    > > company and they will use any method to hook clients into z/OS , 0s/390,
    > > aix or any of their proprietary os's.

    >
    > IBM, for now, is a Linux ally with deep pockets.
    >
    > With Mr. Bill gunning for Linux 9and don't think he isn't), Tux could use
    > some friends with both resources and organisation.
    >


    Choosing IBM as a ally seems to me like choosing Ted Bundy over Charlie
    Manson.

    IBM's pockets are lined with money for sure, how it acquired its vast wealth
    is reason for much debate on legality, ethics and plain morals.

    Billy G has shown that he is no different from IBM, it is Profit Profit
    Profit. Mind you MS can play these silly 'free' software games and will gift
    billions of dollars of software (based on development and distribution,
    support costs) if the end result is the 'microsized' audience. Give schools
    ms word, end up with kids that can ONLY drive on ms word.

    I really have an issue with 'free' anything, nothing I have found in this
    world is free, everything has a cost. Linux has some very good concepts in
    both its design and distribution methods but it seems to have taken on some
    rather unsavory partners in the likes of IBM in its aim at becoming the
    mainstream x86 os. I hope it can survive and thrive.
     
    The Flash, Jul 31, 2003
    #7
  8. Herman Melville

    Rupert Guest

    Of course people are trying to "derail" Linux - anyone with a competing
    product must in order to maintain (if not grow )market share - something
    which their shareholders expect.

    However people seem to think this is a wrong thing to do? But in the same
    breath attempt to do the same to other organisations?



    "Herman Melville" <> wrote in message
    news:CZZVa.8399$...
    >
    > IBM seems to be naming names and pointing the finger......
    >
    > ********************************************************
    >
    > IBM exec: 'Forces' at work against Linux
    >
    > By Andrew Colley
    > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > July 30, 2003, 12:57 PM PT
    >
    > An IBM executive has claimed that a "set of forces" is attempting to

    derail
    > Linux, and hinted that Microsoft and SCO Group are among those

    responsible.
    >
    > Al Zollar, a general manager of sales for IBM eServer iSeries, told
    > delegates attending the company's Asia Pacific Strategic Planning
    > Conference in Queensland, Australia, on Tuesday that a "set of forces" was
    > attempting to stymie adoption of the open-source operating system.
    >
    > "They're mostly located in Redmond, although they have recruited a few
    > allies," said Zollar. Microsoft has its headquarters in Redmond, Wash.
    >
    > ...the rest is on the web site.
     
    Rupert, Jul 31, 2003
    #8
  9. Herman Melville

    AD. Guest

    The Flash wrote:

    > Choosing IBM as a ally seems to me like choosing Ted Bundy over Charlie
    > Manson.


    You're forgetting nobody chose IBM. IBM invested in Linux, the same way
    plenty of other companies have and are all free to. They have just invested
    more than others have to date.

    >
    > IBM's pockets are lined with money for sure, how it acquired its vast
    > wealth is reason for much debate on legality, ethics and plain morals.


    Well, it's now being redistributed back to the 'community'. Would you rather
    they kept it locked up?

    >
    > Billy G has shown that he is no different from IBM, it is Profit Profit
    > Profit. Mind you MS can play these silly 'free' software games and will
    > gift billions of dollars of software (based on development and
    > distribution, support costs) if the end result is the 'microsized'
    > audience.


    That's nothing like what IBM is doing. The beauty of what IBM is doing is
    that they can't exert the same influence and lock in as MS can. IBM has no
    control over Linux, they are offering things under a 'take it or leave it'
    scenario. If they suddenly pulled out of Linux, the Linux community
    wouldn't be any worse off than they would've been without IBMs support.

    I think IBM has learnt some hard lessons about how to treat its customers.
    With Linux, they can't pressure their customers like they used to.

    > I really have an issue with 'free' anything, nothing I have found in this
    > world is free, everything has a cost. Linux has some very good concepts in
    > both its design and distribution methods but it seems to have taken on
    > some rather unsavory partners in the likes of IBM in its aim at becoming
    > the mainstream x86 os. I hope it can survive and thrive.


    Low cost software is just the icing on the cake - the real issue is the
    freedom to use that software how you want, and the ability to easily shift
    vendors if they do something you don't like.

    Critics that keep harping on about nothing really being free are missing the
    point. Linux is gaining momentum due to its Freedom, not just because it is
    low cost. Of course companies realise there is a cost in running something
    even if they didn't have to buy it. People are sick of being dictated to by
    large powerful vendors, and Linux levels the playing field for software
    customers/users and allows them more control over their own technical
    destiny.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 31, 2003
    #9
  10. Herman Melville

    lily Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > this quote is from Rupert of Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:11 :
    > > Of course people are trying to "derail" Linux - anyone with a competing
    > > product must in order to maintain (if not grow )market share - something
    > > which their shareholders expect.

    >
    > Yes - competition is good, but unethical, underhanded tricks are not.
    > So, is SCO/MS competing in the market by offering better products at a
    > better price, giving the customer superior value? Or are they seeking to
    > wipe out competitors with unsubstantiated claims, long winded legal
    > wranglings and FUD?


    They certainly have you confused
    There is one contract dispute between SCO and IBM, it does not involve
    Microsoft.
    SCO bought rights from Novell and claims according to their interpretation
    that derivative works by IBM are a breach of contract which entitle them to
    compensation for damages.
    That is the nature of the business of buying selling and licencing rights

    Microsoft offer products in the marketplace.
    Customers who like the software, pay the price, and agree to use it under
    the license conditions, buy it and use it.
    Pretty bloody simple

    You are simplistically casting a slur on Microsoft by implying that all
    their dealings must be unethical because they have paid for a license to
    rights from SCO.

    Now others will claim therefore that all Linux advocates are Microsoft
    haters.

    You are being sucked into the FUD.

    There are always forces at work _for_ and against Linux
     
    lily, Aug 1, 2003
    #10
  11. Herman Melville

    Jay Guest

    lily wrote:

    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> this quote is from Rupert of Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:11 :
    >> > Of course people are trying to "derail" Linux - anyone with a competing
    >> > product must in order to maintain (if not grow )market share -
    >> > something which their shareholders expect.

    >>
    >> Yes - competition is good, but unethical, underhanded tricks are not.
    >> So, is SCO/MS competing in the market by offering better products at a
    >> better price, giving the customer superior value? Or are they seeking to
    >> wipe out competitors with unsubstantiated claims, long winded legal
    >> wranglings and FUD?

    >
    > They certainly have you confused
    > There is one contract dispute between SCO and IBM, it does not involve
    > Microsoft.


    It does involve Microsoft because Microsoft has come to an agreement
    with SCO to license UNIX for its own current or future uses.

    Remember that Apple has moved to a UNIX platform, and Microsoft
    often follows what Apple does (that is why we have Windows).
     
    Jay, Aug 1, 2003
    #11
  12. Herman Melville

    H3r3 and n0w Guest

    On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:38:26 +1200, The Flash wrote:


    > "Herman Melville" <> wrote in message
    > news:FL7Wa.8525$...
    >> The Flash allegedly said:
    >>
    >> > If people think that IBM is supporting Linux due to moral and good
    >> > business practices they should look a lot closer. IBM is a profit
    >> > driven company and they will use any method to hook clients into z/OS
    >> > , 0s/390, aix or any of their proprietary os's.

    >>
    >> IBM, for now, is a Linux ally with deep pockets.
    >>
    >> With Mr. Bill gunning for Linux 9and don't think he isn't), Tux could
    >> use some friends with both resources and organisation.
    >>
    >>

    > Choosing IBM as a ally seems to me like choosing Ted Bundy over Charlie
    > Manson.


    There was no element of choice.

    IBM is an ally - they support Open Source in the Linux context and have
    made significant contributions of code and programmer resource under the
    GPL.

    They want to create a market space where their platforms - from PCs to
    mainframes - don't have to run some flavour of Windows.

    That is in line with what we want, to.

    Yes, they want to make money. I have no problem with that. The GPL
    protects us from the more normal risks we might face if this was about a
    proprietary platform.

    > IBM's pockets are lined with money for sure, how it acquired its vast
    > wealth is reason for much debate on legality, ethics and plain morals.


    You need to bring yourself up to date. Those days ended around 1988-92.
    That IBM is now a decade gone. I started work for them just as the old era
    crashed to earth. I was very first NZ hire after the November 1992
    Targeted Severance Option....where hundreds were laid off. Once Lou
    Gerstner took over from john Akers - last of the true-blue CEOs - the
    company became a different beast and remains so.

    > Billy G has shown that he is no different from IBM, it is Profit Profit
    > Profit. Mind you MS can play these silly 'free' software games and will
    > gift billions of dollars of software (based on development and
    > distribution, support costs) if the end result is the 'microsized'
    > audience. Give schools ms word, end up with kids that can ONLY drive on
    > ms word.


    Microsoft's corporate ethic bears no similarity to IBM's corporate ethic.
    Not since 1988-90 when IBM hit the wall like a bug on a wind-screen.

    > I really have an issue with 'free' anything, nothing I have found in
    > this world is free, everything has a cost. Linux has some very good
    > concepts in both its design and distribution methods but it seems to
    > have taken on some rather unsavory partners in the likes of IBM in its
    > aim at becoming the mainstream x86 os. I hope it can survive and thrive.


    Linux isn't free. This is an idea put about by people who don't know what
    they are talking about.

    The program code in Linux is a shared, community resource. Thousands have
    donated their time and talent to create it. They do so on the
    understanding that they, in turn, can benefit from the work of others. No
    one can own it. The shared body of work linux represents is FAR from
    free.

    But they are willing to share on the basis we must also share in return if
    we create works based on theirs.

    That isn't free.
     
    H3r3 and n0w, Aug 1, 2003
    #12
  13. Herman Melville

    H3r3 and n0w Guest

    On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:56:45 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

    > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:06:48 +1200, H3r3 and n0w wrote:
    >
    >
    >> You need to bring yourself up to date. Those days ended around 1988-92.
    >> That IBM is now a decade gone. I started work for them just as the old era
    >> crashed to earth. I was very first NZ hire after the November 1992
    >> Targeted Severance Option....where hundreds were laid off. Once Lou
    >> Gerstner took over from john Akers - last of the true-blue CEOs - the
    >> company became a different beast and remains so.

    >
    > Thank god.
    >
    > I can still remember "discussions" with IBM management where they stated
    > that the Internet was a passing fad and that Fidonet was the way of the
    > future for messaging.


    :)

    The "old" IBM was still walking the corridors as a fading afterimage of
    the golden era in early 1993. By 1998, Gertsners influence had pretty
    much transofrmed the corporate culture.

    In 1998/99 they "purged" all but a very small number of the remaining
    "blue-bookers" - the folks with the best packages, guaranteed from the
    70's and 80's. Those folks are almost completely gone now. A lot also
    went to AT&T when IBM sold off the network service division of Global
    Services. Oddly enough, as part of the transition, they retain a
    'translated" version of the "blue-book" package that no longer exists
    in IBM itself.

    > Wrt the rest of it:
    >
    > If there are large, developed resources for an OS, then you can make a lot
    > of money selling hardware and supporting it, plus the OS and its
    > resources, plus you don't have nearly as much overhead of trying to write
    > the OS yourself.
    >
    > In usenet terms, running a single news server is non-trivial, adding
    > support for extra ISPs/domains on it is easy.


    Sure. IBM is about selling boxes, in large measure, and having an OS like
    Linux - which the IT geeks champion for you - is a good thing for Linux
    and a smart move by IBM.
     
    H3r3 and n0w, Aug 1, 2003
    #13
  14. On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:06:48 +1200, H3r3 and n0w wrote:


    > You need to bring yourself up to date. Those days ended around 1988-92.
    > That IBM is now a decade gone. I started work for them just as the old era
    > crashed to earth. I was very first NZ hire after the November 1992
    > Targeted Severance Option....where hundreds were laid off. Once Lou
    > Gerstner took over from john Akers - last of the true-blue CEOs - the
    > company became a different beast and remains so.


    Thank god.

    I can still remember "discussions" with IBM management where they stated
    that the Internet was a passing fad and that Fidonet was the way of the
    future for messaging.


    Wrt the rest of it:

    If there are large, developed resources for an OS, then you can make a lot
    of money selling hardware and supporting it, plus the OS and its
    resources, plus you don't have nearly as much overhead of trying to write
    the OS yourself.

    In usenet terms, running a single news server is non-trivial, adding
    support for extra ISPs/domains on it is easy.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 1, 2003
    #14
  15. Herman Melville

    lily Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > this quote is from lily of Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:15 :
    > > There is one contract dispute between SCO and IBM, it does not involve
    > > Microsoft.

    >
    > There is more than just that one contract dispute. SCO has made libilous
    > statements against Linux kernel developers, and has demanded licence fees
    > from Linux users (which some people see as extortion).


    No they have NOT.
    They have said they will not take any action against their licencees, they
    do not mention that they cannot take any action against anyone else, because
    they do not own copyright on the IBM Sequent code that they "claim" they
    hold rights over as a derivative work of Unix.
    Its a good tactic for SCO to talk up the fear factor, because it makes
    resolution more attractive to IBM to avoid any IBM Linux customer attrition.
    This case will drag on for a while and be settled. Only about 3-4% of civil
    cases go to court according to IP lawyer Laurence Rosen, sorry can't
    remember where the link is.
    If a claim of libel can be proven then someone will take action to prove it,
    the knives are out everywhere for this shakedown scam


    >
    > The MS involvement is circumstantial. SCO is a poorly performing software
    > company, that took a track that could greatly benefit MS, then MS
    > conveniently pays $millions$ to SCO just when they need it to bankroll the
    > legal actions. Maybe it is just coincidence, but not many people believe
    > that (see the OP).


    And maybe it is just your own kind of FUD, an often repeated slur smear
    campaign.
    This has nothing to do with Linux advocacy and if you combine this sort of
    slur tactic with Linux advocacy you discredit the merit in the positive
    aspects of Linux that you may promote.
    You become just like another poster here currently using "Lennier"

    Sun and Microsoft doing licence deals with rights holders is not evidence of
    a conspiracy, it is proprietary software business as usual. They have a lot
    of investment in this kind of licensing, and it would be hypocritical of
    them to take exception to SCO who themselves legitimately invested in buying
    Unix rights from Novell with an expectation of ROI.
     
    lily, Aug 2, 2003
    #15
  16. FWIW.

    2 german outfits have obtained injunctions against SCO's FUD campaign in
    Germany - basically the order given by the courts was "put up or shut up"


    SCO didn't. The ligitants went back to court for contempt rulings. SCO is
    apparently in the process of pulling out of germany altogether as a result.


    Similar proceedings are said to be underway in Australia, with others
    possible in various EU countries.

    Why isn't someone doing this in NZ?
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Herman Melville

    pbs Guest

    Jay wrote:
    >
    > It does involve Microsoft because Microsoft has come to an agreement
    > with SCO to license UNIX for its own current or future uses.
    >
    > Remember that Apple has moved to a UNIX platform, and Microsoft
    > often follows what Apple does (that is why we have Windows).


    Been there done that "Xenix".
    Guess who MS sold Xenix to all together now "Santa Cruz Operation".
    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

    At one time MS owned a large chunk of the Santa Cruz Operation.
    Does any one know if they still have a holding in SCO and if so how
    lage is it?
     
    pbs, Aug 4, 2003
    #17
  18. Herman Melville

    pbs Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > this quote is from Rupert of Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:11 :
    >
    >>Of course people are trying to "derail" Linux - anyone with a competing
    >>product must in order to maintain (if not grow )market share - something
    >>which their shareholders expect.

    >
    >
    > Yes - competition is good, but unethical, underhanded tricks are not.


    Like the information containd in the Halloween documents:
    http://www.opensource.org/halloween/faq.php

    A quote from the Hallowen 2 document:

    : The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to
    : be investigated.
    http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.php#_Toc427383682

    Quots form the Hallowen 7:

    : 'In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and
    : Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO
    : argument'

    : “Linux patent violations/risk of being sued” struck a chord with US
    : and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans
    : and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux
    : patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This
    : was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.'

    http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween7.php
     
    pbs, Aug 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Herman Melville

    lily Guest

    "pbs" <> wrote in message
    news:bgkruu$iq6$...
    > Jay wrote:
    > >
    > > It does involve Microsoft because Microsoft has come to an agreement
    > > with SCO to license UNIX for its own current or future uses.
    > >
    > > Remember that Apple has moved to a UNIX platform, and Microsoft
    > > often follows what Apple does (that is why we have Windows).

    >
    > Been there done that "Xenix".
    > Guess who MS sold Xenix to all together now "Santa Cruz Operation".
    > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
    >
    > At one time MS owned a large chunk of the Santa Cruz Operation.
    > Does any one know if they still have a holding in SCO and if so how
    > lage is it?
    >


    SCO is not the same company, the process by which the current asshats became
    known by that name is quite deceptive.
    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO
     
    lily, Aug 4, 2003
    #19
  20. Herman Melville

    Jay Guest

    pbs wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >>
    >> It does involve Microsoft because Microsoft has come to an agreement
    >> with SCO to license UNIX for its own current or future uses.
    >>
    >> Remember that Apple has moved to a UNIX platform, and Microsoft
    >> often follows what Apple does (that is why we have Windows).

    >
    > Been there done that "Xenix".
    > Guess who MS sold Xenix to all together now "Santa Cruz Operation".
    > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
    >
    > At one time MS owned a large chunk of the Santa Cruz Operation.
    > Does any one know if they still have a holding in SCO and if so how
    > lage is it?


    MS only had an interest in SCO so that they could learn from
    the Unix source code. Didn't learn much did they, because they
    got someone ex DEC who wrote them a clunky VMS-style api instead.
     
    Jay, Aug 4, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Christian Falch
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,950
    Toolman Tim
    Jun 23, 2004
  2. impossible
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    342
    steve
    Dec 9, 2006
  3. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,966
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  4. David Goodwin

    Re: IBM asserts patents against open source software

    David Goodwin, Apr 7, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    585
    victor
    Apr 10, 2010
  5. peterwn
    Replies:
    123
    Views:
    2,074
    victor
    Apr 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page