Now SCO is failing, is MS next up to BAt?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Nov 19, 2006.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    http://www.computerworld.com/action...icleBasic&articleId=9005204&intsrc=hm_ts_head

    Considering how closely the Linux kernel has been scrutinised, picked
    at, and gone over by SCO et Al, I would assume MS has done the same
    looking for IP it owns....

    Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    compete....Mind you with the chair throwing psychos in charge guess that
    is not likely....if it was the 1930s...I'd expect a drive by with tommy
    gans rattling....lol.....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:42:38 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > http://www.computerworld.com/action...icleBasic&articleId=9005204&intsrc=hm_ts_head
    >
    > Considering how closely the Linux kernel has been scrutinised, picked
    > at, and gone over by SCO et Al, I would assume MS has done the same
    > looking for IP it owns....
    >
    > Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    > compete....Mind you with the chair throwing psychos in charge guess that
    > is not likely....if it was the 1930s...I'd expect a drive by with tommy
    > gans rattling....lol.....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    Our chair throwing MS heavyweight has a difficult job on his hands:
    He has to sell to the public his new position on Lunux.

    He saw Oracle's plans to make some easy money on Linux, and he
    will not be left behind.
    Rubbishing Linux suddenly isn't very clever anymore.
    So now its 'getting the value back from all the copyright infringements'.

    Keep them comming!
    All the Homer Simpsons out there will surely fall for this spin.
     
    bob the builder, Nov 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    thingy Guest

    bob the builder wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:42:38 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.computerworld.com/action...icleBasic&articleId=9005204&intsrc=hm_ts_head
    >>
    >> Considering how closely the Linux kernel has been scrutinised, picked
    >> at, and gone over by SCO et Al, I would assume MS has done the same
    >> looking for IP it owns....
    >>
    >> Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    >> compete....Mind you with the chair throwing psychos in charge guess that
    >> is not likely....if it was the 1930s...I'd expect a drive by with tommy
    >> gans rattling....lol.....
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    > Our chair throwing MS heavyweight has a difficult job on his hands:
    > He has to sell to the public his new position on Lunux.
    >
    > He saw Oracle's plans to make some easy money on Linux, and he
    > will not be left behind.
    > Rubbishing Linux suddenly isn't very clever anymore.
    > So now its 'getting the value back from all the copyright infringements'.
    >
    > Keep them comming!
    > All the Homer Simpsons out there will surely fall for this spin.
    >
    >


    Some of the reports are suggesting that Linux is eating Balmer's
    breakfast in the server space.

    I have read some of the MS get the fasts "white papers" and how it is
    worded (such as the unix migration) is very interesting....just read
    between the lines on the qualifications.

    I still wonder why they bother with these, a MS shop is not going to
    migrate to Linux and does not need convincing not to by such docs....a
    heavy Unix shop is going to go Linux for similar reasons, mainly
    internal skills base. Anybody else with their eyes open is going to take
    MS's docs with a pinch (well a bucket) of salt and do their own numbers.....

    Of course the money to be made in this space (unix migration) is
    significant and Linux seems to be holding its own if not beating MS in
    this the higher margin space....ie Linux might just be leap frogging
    MS....MS pushing SQL2005 is interesting its their lead into the higher
    end.....Oracle will be resisting that and rather than cut its own
    margins is trying to cut the unix and linux vendors margins with their
    own distro.....

    All good fun...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 19, 2006
    #3
  4. thingy

    Chris Hope Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > bob the builder wrote:
    >> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:42:38 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>>

    http://www.computerworld.com/action...icleBasic&articleId=9005204&intsrc=hm_ts_head
    >>>
    >>> Considering how closely the Linux kernel has been scrutinised,
    >>> picked at, and gone over by SCO et Al, I would assume MS has done
    >>> the same looking for IP it owns....
    >>>
    >>> Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    >>> compete....Mind you with the chair throwing psychos in charge guess
    >>> that is not likely....if it was the 1930s...I'd expect a drive by
    >>> with tommy gans rattling....lol.....
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing

    >>
    >> Our chair throwing MS heavyweight has a difficult job on his hands:
    >> He has to sell to the public his new position on Lunux.
    >>
    >> He saw Oracle's plans to make some easy money on Linux, and he
    >> will not be left behind.
    >> Rubbishing Linux suddenly isn't very clever anymore.
    >> So now its 'getting the value back from all the copyright
    >> infringements'.
    >>
    >> Keep them comming!
    >> All the Homer Simpsons out there will surely fall for this spin.

    >
    > Some of the reports are suggesting that Linux is eating Balmer's
    > breakfast in the server space.
    >
    > I have read some of the MS get the fasts "white papers" and how it is
    > worded (such as the unix migration) is very interesting....just read
    > between the lines on the qualifications.
    >
    > I still wonder why they bother with these, a MS shop is not going to
    > migrate to Linux and does not need convincing not to by such docs....a
    > heavy Unix shop is going to go Linux for similar reasons, mainly
    > internal skills base. Anybody else with their eyes open is going to
    > take MS's docs with a pinch (well a bucket) of salt and do their own
    > numbers.....


    I'm sure I've said this before, but if they didn't attack Linux like
    they did, then it may not be as well known as it is. The fact they keep
    arguing that they're better than Linux and creating all these reports,
    white papers and websites makes a lot of people who might not have
    otherwise heard about Linux sit up and say, "Hmm, what's this Linux
    thing? Maybe I should check it out."

    > Of course the money to be made in this space (unix migration) is
    > significant and Linux seems to be holding its own if not beating MS in
    > this the higher margin space....ie Linux might just be leap frogging
    > MS....MS pushing SQL2005 is interesting its their lead into the higher
    > end.....Oracle will be resisting that and rather than cut its own
    > margins is trying to cut the unix and linux vendors margins with their
    > own distro.....


    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Balmer and keeping his mouth shut?

    Novel combination.

    On the other hand I believe the MS turnaround is caused by the
    shareholders. They see the dollars not the spin.
     
    bob the builder, Nov 20, 2006
    #5
  6. thingy

    thingy Guest

    bob the builder wrote:
    > Balmer and keeping his mouth shut?
    >
    > Novel combination.
    >
    > On the other hand I believe the MS turnaround is caused by the
    > shareholders. They see the dollars not the spin.


    i dont know how much impact shareholders have on Ballmer etc etc. As
    long as MS is making huge profits no one will seriously care....its whem
    losses occur that Q's get asked IMHO...not exactly a happening thing
    soon IMHO.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 20, 2006
    #6
  7. In article <>, Chris Hope <> wrote:
    (snip)

    >I'm sure I've said this before, but if they didn't attack Linux like
    >they did, then it may not be as well known as it is. The fact they keep
    >arguing that they're better than Linux and creating all these reports,
    >white papers and websites makes a lot of people who might not have
    >otherwise heard about Linux sit up and say, "Hmm, what's this Linux
    >thing? Maybe I should check it out."


    Hmmm ... interesting. Looks like marketing blunder 101 to me ... and I'm
    part way through "the" book on positioning (Ries and Trout) so I should know
    :) :)
    When the number one brand starts to defend itself, it is in serious trouble.
    It should be simply selling its product(s) and ignoring the competition
    dismissively ... as if whatever they do doesn't matter.
    However, they also say that the market number one should be looking 5 to 10
    years into the future, using all its clout to crush/ignore any opposition
    and position itself for that reality.

    Seems like MS haven't read the book :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 20, 2006
    #7
  8. thingy

    Chris Hope Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <>, Chris Hope
    > <> wrote: (snip)
    >
    >>I'm sure I've said this before, but if they didn't attack Linux like
    >>they did, then it may not be as well known as it is. The fact they
    >>keep arguing that they're better than Linux and creating all these
    >>reports, white papers and websites makes a lot of people who might not
    >>have otherwise heard about Linux sit up and say, "Hmm, what's this
    >>Linux thing? Maybe I should check it out."

    >
    > Hmmm ... interesting. Looks like marketing blunder 101 to me ... and
    > I'm part way through "the" book on positioning (Ries and Trout) so I
    > should know


    Excellent book :) Those guys know their stuff.


    > :) :)
    > When the number one brand starts to defend itself, it is in serious
    > trouble. It should be simply selling its product(s) and ignoring the
    > competition dismissively ... as if whatever they do doesn't matter.
    > However, they also say that the market number one should be looking 5
    > to 10 years into the future, using all its clout to crush/ignore any
    > opposition and position itself for that reality.
    >
    > Seems like MS haven't read the book :)


    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 20, 2006
    #8
  9. In message <>, thingy wrote:

    > Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    > compete....


    Here are some threats from Ballmer about possible lawsuits
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/microsoft_claims_linux_code/>. Or
    it could be another cowardly KFTC-style bluff
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/28/ms_korea_pull/>,
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/ms_korea_xp/>...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 21, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <>, Chris Hope <> wrote:
    >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Chris Hope
    >> <> wrote: (snip)
    >>
    >>>I'm sure I've said this before, but if they didn't attack Linux like
    >>>they did, then it may not be as well known as it is. The fact they
    >>>keep arguing that they're better than Linux and creating all these
    >>>reports, white papers and websites makes a lot of people who might not
    >>>have otherwise heard about Linux sit up and say, "Hmm, what's this
    >>>Linux thing? Maybe I should check it out."

    >>
    >> Hmmm ... interesting. Looks like marketing blunder 101 to me ... and
    >> I'm part way through "the" book on positioning (Ries and Trout) so I
    >> should know

    >
    >Excellent book :) Those guys know their stuff.


    Agreed. It should be recommended reading for all consumers along the lines
    of "if we know what 'they' are trying to do we can ignore the bastards" :).
    One of those classics where you keep saying ... "of course ... that's really
    obvious !" ... before realising that you hadn't thought of it before they
    said it :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 21, 2006
    #10
  11. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    >> compete....

    >
    > Here are some threats from Ballmer about possible lawsuits
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/microsoft_claims_linux_code/>. Or
    > it could be another cowardly KFTC-style bluff
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/28/ms_korea_pull/>,
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/ms_korea_xp/>...


    I wonder that RH or someone dont raise a legal pre-emptive
    strike....take MS to court claiming Balmer's "lies" are just that and to
    front up with proof or shutup because his comments are damaging RH's
    business...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 21, 2006
    #11
  12. In message <4562bc25$>, thingy wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In message <>, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    >>> compete....

    >>
    >> Here are some threats from Ballmer about possible lawsuits
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/microsoft_claims_linux_code/>.
    >> Or it could be another cowardly KFTC-style bluff
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/28/ms_korea_pull/>,
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/ms_korea_xp/>...

    >
    > I wonder that RH or someone dont raise a legal pre-emptive
    > strike....take MS to court claiming Balmer's "lies" are just that and to
    > front up with proof or shutup because his comments are damaging RH's
    > business...


    Except I don't think there's been much damage to Red Hat's business to date.
    Even their stock price
    <http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=RHAT> is still about
    the same level it's been since the beginning of the month.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 21, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <ejufuj$mt9$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >In message <4562bc25$>, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> In message <>, thingy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Come on MS quit the bullsh*t sue....or get on with it and
    >>>> compete....
    >>>
    >>> Here are some threats from Ballmer about possible lawsuits
    >>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/microsoft_claims_linux_code/>.
    >>> Or it could be another cowardly KFTC-style bluff
    >>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/28/ms_korea_pull/>,
    >>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/ms_korea_xp/>...

    >>
    >> I wonder that RH or someone dont raise a legal pre-emptive
    >> strike....take MS to court claiming Balmer's "lies" are just that and to
    >> front up with proof or shutup because his comments are damaging RH's
    >> business...

    >
    >Except I don't think there's been much damage to Red Hat's business to date.
    >Even their stock price
    ><http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=RHAT> is still about
    >the same level it's been since the beginning of the month.


    ... everyone knows (tm) that stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do with
    the underlying or "real" value of a company. All it says is how people with
    money are "feeling" about the company concerned :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 22, 2006
    #13
  14. In message <ek01h9$3kn$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > .. everyone knows (tm) that stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do
    > with the underlying or "real" value of a company. All it says is how
    > people with money are "feeling" about the company concerned :)


    On the contrary. It is a basic axiom of free-market theory that the stock
    price DOES reflect the real (no quotation marks) value of the company. If
    there were a discrepancy between stock price and company value, that opens
    the door to someone making a killing by buying or selling stock as
    appropriate, whereupon the situation becomes self-correcting.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <ek0sf6$vug$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >In message <ek01h9$3kn$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> .. everyone knows (tm) that stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do
    >> with the underlying or "real" value of a company. All it says is how
    >> people with money are "feeling" about the company concerned :)

    >
    >On the contrary. It is a basic axiom of free-market theory that the stock
    >price DOES reflect the real (no quotation marks) value of the company. If
    >there were a discrepancy between stock price and company value, that opens
    >the door to someone making a killing by buying or selling stock as
    >appropriate, whereupon the situation becomes self-correcting.


    It is indeed a basic axiom. This axiom, or its underlying assumptions are,
    of course wrong :). Some of the basic assukmptions are :
    1) everyone has all the information
    2) everyone makes logical decisions

    We know these 2 are wrong for a start. Of course any theory is limited by
    reality too. :)
    The pump and dump schemes are a classic counter example. Were they not, scam
    artists would have zero chance of making anything.
    If you want others, just check out stock markets. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 23, 2006
    #15
  16. In message <ek2nch$nft$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <ek0sf6$vug$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >>In message <ek01h9$3kn$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>
    >>> .. everyone knows (tm) that stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do
    >>> with the underlying or "real" value of a company. All it says is how
    >>> people with money are "feeling" about the company concerned :)

    >>
    >>On the contrary. It is a basic axiom of free-market theory that the stock
    >>price DOES reflect the real (no quotation marks) value of the company. If
    >>there were a discrepancy between stock price and company value, that opens
    >>the door to someone making a killing by buying or selling stock as
    >>appropriate, whereupon the situation becomes self-correcting.

    >
    >> The pump and dump schemes are a classic counter example. Were they not,

    > scam artists would have zero chance of making anything.


    And guess what? They're not working any more
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/stock_scammers_losing/>.
    Self-correction in action, or what? :)
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 23, 2006
    #16
  17. In article <ek33k2$1ri$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >In message <ek2nch$nft$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article <ek0sf6$vug$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>In message <ek01h9$3kn$>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> .. everyone knows (tm) that stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do
    >>>> with the underlying or "real" value of a company. All it says is how
    >>>> people with money are "feeling" about the company concerned :)
    >>>
    >>>On the contrary. It is a basic axiom of free-market theory that the stock
    >>>price DOES reflect the real (no quotation marks) value of the company. If
    >>>there were a discrepancy between stock price and company value, that opens
    >>>the door to someone making a killing by buying or selling stock as
    >>>appropriate, whereupon the situation becomes self-correcting.

    >>

    (snip)
    >>> The pump and dump schemes are a classic counter example. Were they not,

    >> scam artists would have zero chance of making anything.

    >
    >And guess what? They're not working any more
    ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/stock_scammers_losing/>.
    >Self-correction in action, or what? :)


    Oh they are still working 'well enough' ... or will do so again in the
    future :) That's assumption number one (having all the information) working
    a bit better. Only a bit though. You can't get "all" the information. :)
    You snipped the explanation of why you were wrong too. Unhelpful ... I had
    to re remember it :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 23, 2006
    #17
    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. wps
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    7,449
    Leonidas Jones
    Oct 7, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    686
  3. jowl

    BAT file pauses

    jowl, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    57,296
    Paul T Wang
    Jul 15, 2003
  4. Howard

    MS funding SCO, proof now at hand.

    Howard, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    883
    mcfly
    Mar 7, 2004
  5. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    621
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page