The target of all this war-talk is IBM, not any of us. The idea is to shake IBM down for some big bucks. I doubt that it would profit SCO to go after the Linux distributors, unless there is more than money at stake. dj tuchler On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 05:16, Preston Crawford wrote:

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 20:56, Derek Fountain wrote:

...

On Thursday 15 May 2003 10:32, Preston Crawford wrote:

...

Okay, so now that individual end users have been threatened with legal action by SCO, I'm wondering what SuSE is going to do.

They have? Well, that's me worried...! No, seriously, where did you read this?

http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html

The key quote for me...

"As a consequence of Linux’s unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."

"Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights."

So FreeBSD here I come? Or is there going to be some defense against this nonesense? This corporate terrorism.

Preston -- Dennis Tuchler

On Wednesday 14 May 2003 22:42, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Preston Crawford (me@prestoncrawford.com) [030514 22:18]: -> ->So FreeBSD here I come? Or is there going to be some defense against ->this nonesense? This corporate terrorism.

Do you honestly think the BSD's are immune to this? Hardly. They just aren't on the radar for the " You copied stuff from us, but we're not saying what. naananana. "

Does anyone REALLY think that IBM could be bested by an upstart like SCO. IBM has been around for quite sometime..and they know this game. You don't survive for 107 years without being a little on the tough side..

http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history/timeline-ORG.html

The dogs of war have yet to be unleashed I think. ;)

Well, I read a bit about IBM, and seen a few documentaries on them. They are a culture unto themselves. They are without par the most successful and prolific company in the field of computers and electronic technologies. Everyone thinks M$ is big, and as far as a software company they are. But IBM dwarfs M$. Just look at the stock value and their quarterly reports. I mean be honest. IBM "threw" 1 billion into linux development - it's "risk" capital that's beginning to pay off big time. Big Blue are there own venture capitalist for crying out loud. Hmmm.. 1 billion! I've heard that number again recently - coincidence? Not likely. SCO is a penny ennie company compared to BIG BLUE. It's an elaborate shakedown. And SCO is trying to use every means available to get IBMs partner and constituents to pressure IBM and shake up the market as well. I also think Ben is right about SuSE's take on this. The head chameleon was a former IBM chief and I'm willing to bet the farm the he has some fairly deep rooted ties with the blue. I think they're communicating on this quite aptly and SuSE is just bidding their time on this. I also find it ironic that SCO just announces that they're suspending sales of it's own Linux offerings, and then making blank statements about "anyone" using Linux could be liable! Well....... let's see. Linux is supplanting Unix. One of SCOs main source of revenue is Unix (or supposedly Unix) patents and the subsequent licensing of said patents. Now if Unix dries up, and IBM is heading this shift, what happens to company that's struggled over the years and now sees one of it's main revenue stays going obsolete? Take the money and run baby! They know that bigtime nixes are on there way out and so is there money stream. So, why not take a few with you as you go down? It's like the convict on death row that acts tough and then goes kicking and screaming when the time comes. This is the "tough" talk right before the needle full of undeluted K+ (potassium). They know it's not going to last and have figured out the light at the end of the tunnel is the train called Linux and this means no more licenses, so now what? Big blue will squash them. They're just doing what they do best, being quite and gathering their forces. I could be wrong, but.... Nah. I think it's all but done and SCO is just too desperate to be honest about it. Is M$ giving them a push? Are their venture capitlaists urging them on? Is this a tactic plot to undermine Linux to further keep Unix and SCO licensing revenues viable? All could be true. But I still think at the end of the day it going to very Blue for SCO (hehe - could resist)! Just MHO. Curtis.

* Marshall Heartley (heartley@earthlink.net) [030515 03:50]: -> ->Yes I do think that they are more immune than Linux (FreeBSD that is). ->Unless my memory is incorrect along with the history that I read on ->FreeBSD, they are free of any old AT&T code which I believe was bought ->by the SCO Group. That was mandated in the lawsuit that Berkley had to ->settle. Of course I would like to find out why you state that they are ->not immune. Because it started out by them saying that Linux was using some (undefined) UNIX libraries..then it was the kernel had UNIX code in it then it was " They stole our concepts and changed them around so that they would look different but they are the same and they belong to us. " So I would say all of the work arounds, new code and whatever that makes it BSDlite which is how they got around the AT&T UNIX issues would be null and void since they are talking about concepts now..not just outright code theft. Remember that the *BSD's actually say they are a UNIX based OS so that would give SCO the right to bring any kind of FUD campaign that they chose to against it. It's just that IBM isn't pushing the BSD's so they aren't on SCO's radar. But never think that something is safe when a lie is brought against it. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.

* Marshall Heartley (heartley@earthlink.net) [030515 12:12]: -> ->Point well taken. Then given your assesment above, then any *NIX variant ->will be on their hit list. That stinks! :-( -> Any variant is on their hit list. Which is why Sun made it a point to put out a press released when this whole thing started ..it stated their payments to SCO for the SysV code was paid up. Since they use it in Solaris. :) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.

On Thursday 15 May 2003 00:42, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

Does anyone REALLY think that IBM could be bested by an upstart like SCO. IBM has been around for quite sometime..and they know this game. You don't survive for 107 years without being a little on the tough side..

Indeed. That's a masterpiece of understatement. I suspect the whole SCO silliness will not amount to much in the end. And as far as Linux goes, it's much too little and far too late for SCO to really affect Linux; it's awfully hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and Linux is very quickly becoming ubiquitous. I soooo wish someone would take Ransom Love, Darl MacBride and the rest of the Utah twit brigade and place them in a cage and drop them in the Great Salt Lake until the bubbles stop coming to the surface. - Thomas Long -- Using SuSE Linux 8.2

Thomas Long wrote:

On Thursday 15 May 2003 00:42, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

Does anyone REALLY think that IBM could be bested by an upstart like SCO. IBM has been around for quite sometime..and they know this game. You don't survive for 107 years without being a little on the tough side..

Indeed. That's a masterpiece of understatement. I suspect the whole SCO silliness will not amount to much in the end. And as far as Linux goes, it's much too little and far too late for SCO to really affect Linux; it's awfully hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and Linux is very quickly becoming ubiquitous.

I soooo wish someone would take Ransom Love, Darl MacBride and the rest of the Utah twit brigade and place them in a cage and drop them in the Great Salt Lake until the bubbles stop coming to the surface.

They only float....too much salt. :) Fred -- Fred A. Miller Systems Administrator Cornell Univ. Press Services fm@cupserv.org, www.cupserv.org

On Thursday 15 May 2003 05:40, Thomas Long wrote:

On Thursday 15 May 2003 00:42, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

Does anyone REALLY think that IBM could be bested by an upstart like SCO. IBM has been around for quite sometime..and they know this game. You don't survive for 107 years without being a little on the tough side..

Indeed. That's a masterpiece of understatement. I suspect the whole SCO silliness will not amount to much in the end. And as far as Linux goes, it's much too little and far too late for SCO to really affect Linux; it's awfully hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and Linux is very quickly becoming ubiquitous.

Seems a fair amount of their grumblings revolve around the 64 bit devel stuff and the fact that the big vendors opt to focus on Linux rather than 'nix in general... which means that SCOs prospect of garnering more revenue from licensing was [pun intended] nixed by DELL, HP, and the other big boys.

I soooo wish someone would take Ransom Love, Darl MacBride and the rest of the Utah twit brigade and place them in a cage and drop them in the Great Salt Lake until the bubbles stop coming to the surface.

Well, you'd have to pick your spot well, alot of the Great salt lake is very shallow and they could very well be able to keep their head about water. But then again letting them stew from the neck down in salt water wouldn't be so bad either now, would it?

- Thomas Long

-- Using SuSE Linux 8.2

A quick check of SCO's stock price is less than $2.00/share. Caldera (aka SCO nowadays) had swap of 4 shares of Caldera for 1 share of the NEW SCO (which would be worth more than $1.00). The result was to get Caldera re-listed on the stock board (if less than $1.00 it is dropped or not listed). My guess is that SCO may hope to get a buy out offer from IBM (deep pockets) or an out of court settlement. "Follow the Money!" Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Preston Crawford (me@prestoncrawford.com) [030514 22:18]: -> ->So FreeBSD here I come? Or is there going to be some defense against ->this nonesense? This corporate terrorism.

Do you honestly think the BSD's are immune to this? Hardly. They just aren't on the radar for the " You copied stuff from us, but we're not saying what. naananana. "

Does anyone REALLY think that IBM could be bested by an upstart like SCO. IBM has been around for quite sometime..and they know this game. You don't survive for 107 years without being a little on the tough side..

http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history/timeline-ORG.html

The dogs of war have yet to be unleashed I think. ;)

-- 73 de Donn Washburn __ " http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 a MSDOS Virus "Free Zone" OS Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org Info: http://www.knoppix.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Derek Fountain wrote: |>>>Okay, so now that individual end users have been threatened with legal |>>>action by SCO, I'm wondering what SuSE is going to do. |>> |>>They have? Well, that's me worried...! No, seriously, where did you read |>>this? |> |>http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html | | | I thought that's what you might have been refering to, but I can't see any | threat of legal action to end users. I did notice some headline writers | interpretted it that way. | | |>"As a consequence of Linux¼s unrestricted authoring process, it is not |>surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of |>the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may |>arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end |>user." | | | The second sentence is the important one, and it contains the word "may" | twice. It's obviously bullshit - end users aren't responsible for the | development process, at least not in any sane legal system. Possibly in the | US, though. ;o) | | |>"Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are |>prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of |>our intellectual property or other rights." | | | I can't see the link to the music industry either. That's about stopping | people infringing copyright. Other than the business of trying to scare a lot | of people, there's nothing analogous that I can see. | | The real puzzle for me is what SCO are actually trying to achieve with all | this noise. Are they trying to crush the Linux market? If so, why? Surely | they can't believe that we're all going to dump our Linux boxen and rush off | and buy large numbers of Openserver licences? | | If it's not that, what is it? Once we know that, we might be able to have a go | at answering the question in the subject. | I think Bruce Perrens may have been on target in his comments when this whole issue appeared: His suggestion was that SCO simply wanted to be bought out. Now I can well imagine that this course of action could be cheaper and have a more predictable outcome for IBM if they do the buying. IMHO. Kind regards, Simon - -- Simon JF Heaton Principal Technical Consultant Software AG UK Ltd. Tel: +44(0) 1332 611000 Signature Fpr: 465D 6534 0768 B3EA C564 471B 0BD0 55CB D338 E1DA Encryption Fpr: 94E2 65D9 2473 D1BD 0374 BB22 30E8 7603 731F 6D82 - -- The content of this e-mail is confidential, may contain privileged material and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you receive this in error, please notify Software AG immediately and delete this e-mail. Software AG (UK) Limited Registered in England & Wales 1310740 Registered Office: Hudson House, Hudson Way, Pride Park, Derby DE24 8HS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+w1TaC9BVy9M44doRAqcEAKCd/s3AInh7aT/YmhBe6umXEmgQugCdHmvo YBD/zc80gANaOR51MTTTtw0= =hm9C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 15 May 2003 03:50, Simon Heaton wrote:

Derek Fountain wrote:

<snip>

I think Bruce Perrens may have been on target in his comments when this whole issue appeared: His suggestion was that SCO simply wanted to be bought out. Now I can well imagine that this course of action could be cheaper and have a more predictable outcome for IBM if they do the buying.

IMHO.

Kind regards,

Simon

I'm no good at this legal stuff, couldn't understand it if it was spelled out to me, but maybe IBM is waiting for SCO to spend what little money it has left on this dumb lawsuit, it's worth as a company drop to the most low it can be, and *then* when the smoke clears and SCO has nothing to stand on, make a really cheap offer to buy them out...like for half what SCO would expect (if that's what they're really hoping for of course)? Don't this sound feasible? John - -- A butterfly is: Pretty,soft,harmless...and useless, just like M$N. My Penguin and my Gecko eat butterflies. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+w8Z6H5oDXyLKXKQRAuVVAJsH3f8uOOzTOph3JgRYUsohCkj5dACffyVO kMNRg0oPG97Yol7KgMiU1kI= =cFef -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

My experiences with the legal system, especially as it pertains to civil suits, is that the side with overwhelming legal resources wins. It is hard for me to imagine that SCO has anywhere near the legal budget

Unfortunately, winning and loosing in courts is not a matter of truth and justice anymore, but deep pockets. Alex that

IBM has. Unless SCO has a hidden source of support, I think that IBM will do the calculation of cost to chew up SCO in court versus the cost of buyout and make the decision on a cost-benefit basis. But IBM will make this decision, not SCO. Just my 2 cents.

On Thursday 15 May 2003 10:32, Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:04:58 -0700

Tony Alfrey wrote:

...

My experiences with the legal system, especially as it pertains to civil suits, is that the side with overwhelming legal resources wins. It is hard for me to imagine that SCO has anywhere near the legal budget that IBM has. Unless SCO has a hidden source of support, I think that IBM will do the calculation of cost to chew up SCO in court versus the cost of buyout and make the decision on a cost-benefit basis. But IBM will make this decision, not SCO.

Then how did Lindows (http://www.lindows.com/) win over Microsoft? The bottom line is that the small guy needs a good case, or at least strong enough to make the big guy settle. Most lawsuits are settled out of court because the cost of pursuing it is high AND, the outcome is a risk. Certainly one strategy for the big player is as you have stated.

Ok, with Lindows it was the big guy that brought the tort against the little guy. Essentially what M$ wanted was it's interpretation of a name based on implications about a market position and name recognition do be stopped on the bases of some sort of rights to said name or derivitives therein. It was a nonsense argument blatently fashioned to hamper/quash a competitor - and was succinctly rejected by the courts on essentially that premise. In otherwords M$ has no trademake to anything other than "Microsoft Window" and not just "windows", otherwise someone would undoubtedly try to trademark the whole damn language. Can you see trade mark for "dumb", doorknob", "widget", etc, etc... So in the M$ vs Lindows case M$ had a lot to prove and couldn't. In the SCO vs IBM case this issues are less transparent. And, here the little guy is going after the big guy. Yes, the "my lawyers are bigger than your lawyers" aspect of corporate torts will most definately play a role IMHO. It always does. However, unlike the M$ vs Lindows - "you can't use that name" case, the SCO vs IBM - "You stool our code/patent" case is much more convoluted with a far greater amount of intricisies. The similarities are the same with regards to burden of proof. SCO brought on the allegations and has the burden. David Boies may be a hallmark attorney, but his track record hasn't been all that convincing - just ask Al Gore (no politiacal statement intended, merely an observation related to electoral disputes, representation, and outcomes of same). I said it at the onset of this fiasco. IBM can file motions, writs, requests for stays and injunctions, etc, etc.... until they're blue in the face (oops I made a bad joke there didn't I?) if it plays into the strategy that IBMs law team formulates. This is a common practice to suck the resources out of the competition. Now if it is deemed by the IBM legal team that the quicker the better, then one would suspect that they will move to gather any evidence to bolster their case and discredit SCO. Given that SCO is on shaky ground and has the burden of proof it's a case of prove it. And that ain't neccessarily easy. And this could be a little investment to shake SCO up in court and make them more plyable for a possible. Likewise, if things start to look shaky then IBM can pull a hostile takeover and bamm it's done. Just go to investors - offer a profit to the majority holders and no more SCO. Just MHO. Curtis.

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 23:54, Derek Fountain wrote:

...

http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html

I thought that's what you might have been refering to, but I can't see any threat of legal action to end users. I did notice some headline writers interpretted it that way.

...

"As a consequence of Linux’s unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."

The second sentence is the important one, and it contains the word "may" twice. It's obviously bullshit - end users aren't responsible for the development process, at least not in any sane legal system. Possibly in the US, though. ;o)

Yeah, probably in the US. US Patent and IP law is screwed severely. Maybe this will show once and for all that the whole thing should be thrown out completely.

I can't see the link to the music industry either. That's about stopping people infringing copyright. Other than the business of trying to scare a lot of people, there's nothing analogous that I can see.

That's not the point. There is no link, sure, but that's the beauty of their assault. Their attack could absolutely destroy Linux, if only from a PR standpoint. Making a tenuous link to music piracy is one way of putting that bug into the minds of people out there that Linux is similarly "bad". That people that use Linux are just like those bad music pirates. Look at how they compared a DOS attack on their web server to cyberterrorism. Terrorism!!! They're basically using every verbal barrage and hot-button word possible to destroy Linux. I too have a hard time believing that Microsoft ISN'T behind this. Preston

I have to admit my son and I have raised that question a few times... Funny how they suddenly got quiet over there in Redmond... Pagan On Thursday 15 May 2003 09:34, Preston Crawford wrote:

verbal barrage and hot-button word possible to destroy Linux. I too have a hard time believing that Microsoft ISN'T behind this.

Preston

If SCO Group declared war on Linux, why we wouldn't declare a war on SCO alltogether? Let create SuSE Linux users petition to SuSE to kick SCO out of UL. These crooks at SCO won't be able to fight on three fronts IBM, UL and Linux community in the same time. This evil corporation should die and its death should serve as a lesson to other money greedy corporations. Alex -------------------

Well, It seems Ben and others aren't the only ones that interpret SCOs latest statements as a outright threat to Linux and anyone that is using or

develepiing it - and according to this report have suspended operations with U.L.

"NETFLASH: BREAKING NEWS FROM NETWORK WORLD FUSION The SCO Group yesterday declared war on the Linux community,........."

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0515scodrops.html

Very stupid petition. If SCO ment not to harm Linux they wouldn't start this law suit. -------------------

look at http://www.petitiononline.com/yama01/petition.html

Doesn't call on SuSE to drop SCO, but does ask SCO to drop their

lawsuit

Joe

Hate to break it to you, but corporations exist to be "money greedy corporations". You can't blame SCO for trying to make as much money as possible. One can question however the lawsuit, but calling them greedy is just naive.

...

If SCO Group declared war on Linux, why we wouldn't declare a war on SCO alltogether? Let create SuSE Linux users petition to SuSE to kick SCO out of UL. These crooks at SCO won't be able to fight on three fronts IBM, UL and Linux community in the same time. This evil corporation should die and its death should serve as a lesson to other money greedy corporations.

On Thursday 15 May 2003 21:25, Michael Hasenstein wrote:

First, SuSE hasn't had any dots in its name for YEARS... (see your To: address, the part outside <..>)

And I know why.. It was too hard to keep typing.. ;-)

See www.suse.com, latest SuSE PR: http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_sta tement.html

Based on this, it would seem that SCO it hiding something from it's partners. I'd make another request with the stipulation that if not answered fully with a given time limit, SCO would be dropped/removed/kicked out of UnitedLinux. Seems that the association with these folks is becoming detrimental to SuSE and the rest of UL. Hopefully we will be reading about something like this very soon. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 8.1 Kernel 2.4.19 KDE 3.1.1 Kmail 1.5.1 For SuSE Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 9:32pm up 6 days, 27 min, 6 users, load average: 1.78, 1.68, 1.74

On Thursday 15 May 2003 21:47, Michael Hasenstein wrote:

Mike wrote: ...

...

answered fully with a given time limit, SCO would be dropped/removed/kicked out of UnitedLinux. Seems that the association with these folks is becoming detrimental to SuSE and the rest of UL.

There are contracts we cannot just breach because we don't like them - for United Linux 1.0, the current version. According this statement it looks like SCO is cut their ties with UL.

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003051601426NWCDSS What I really find amazing, is that although they say they are dropping sales and distribution of linux, Openlinux was still available this morning at ftp.caldera.com Makes you stop and wonder just how stupid these folks really are. Now it doesn't.. I lied about that part. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 8.1 Kernel 2.4.19 KDE 3.1.1 Kmail 1.5.1 For SuSE Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 5:53pm up 18 min, 3 users, load average: 1.91, 1.83, 1.25

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 17 May 2003 11:21, Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2003 17:56:20 +0200

Mike wrote:

...

What I really find amazing, is that although they say they are dropping sales and distribution of linux, Openlinux was still available this morning at ftp.caldera.com

Makes you stop and wonder just how stupid these folks really are. Now it doesn't.. I lied about that part.

I think the whole thing is bizarre. My thought is that they really want to hurt the Linux business with the idea that it wil strengthen the SCO business.

Today, some of the biggest Unix vendors (IBM, HP) have major Linux platforms. The only real holdout in the Unix space is Sun. The key issue is that SCO collects royalties on all Unix products, and Linux directly competes with SCO's Unix offerings. I do think that they did make an error in that they were not initially prepared to take on the entire Linux community. I think the major thing here is that neither SCO nor IBM really want to take this thing all the way to the court system. The risk is too high. IBM and SCO will battle it out for a while, then settle. But now since the scope has widened, SCO may be committed. And, even if they settle with IBM, they have cast a shadow on Linux, which will cost us (the Linux community) some time, effort and cash to repair the PR damage.

Nah, I don't think Linux is getting hurt, at least looking at it as a 'Joe computer user' point of view. Most people out there still don't know about Linux in the first place, and many of *those* don't hardly have a clue what OS they have *now*, or what an OS even is. Since there's been nothing but pure speculation and spouting from SCO, and just as much/many knowledgable people explaining how SCO is full of it, I just don't see Linux being hurt any. Normally this might possibly mean something, but coming from a 'Joe user', I may be so wrong that it's sickening. John - -- A butterfly is: Pretty,soft,harmless...and useless, just like M$N. My Penguin and my Gecko eat butterflies. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+xo3VH5oDXyLKXKQRAmEzAKCVFlEmolqJFsPjPz2mnOKCfzViOACgnIxS u7XSRClIoGfV+c04xpBhWOA= =U6QA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Michael Hasenstein (mha@suse.com) [030515 12:27]: ->First, SuSE hasn't had any dots in its name for YEARS... (see your To: ->address, the part outside <..>) No offense intended ..but what does that have to do with the conversation at hand? ;) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.

* Michael Hasenstein (mha@suse.com) [030515 14:54]: ->b) who cares? That was my original question. But since you ask...you added to a thread that had nothing to do with the thread. But your right..who cares how SuSE spells their name. ;) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.

Personally..... If SuSE and the other Linux dist's do nothing, I will be looking at a Multi-proc version of BSD. SCO has been A$$'s many times in the past. They have had a crappy product and crappy support. (personal opinion) I really expect to see a BIG thumping session on SCO by the Linux groups. If not, I am not sure that there will be much of a user base left. I am sure that SCO could care less about Linux. -- Kirk Moore Network/Software Engineer Black holes are created when God divides by zero! -----Original Message----- From: Preston Crawford [mailto:me@prestoncrawford.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:09 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] What is SuSE going to do about SCO? On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 12:25, Michael Hasenstein wrote:

First, SuSE hasn't had any dots in its name for YEARS... (see your To:

address, the part outside <..>)

??????? Is this important? This is probably the way my email program picked off the email address when I was using Pine and did a Take Address on it. I didn't add them in there myself for flair. And even if I did, what is the point?

See www.suse.com, latest SuSE PR:

http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_statem ent.html Nice, but I want to see SuSE run away from SCO as fast as possible. Otherwise I have to wonder whether I might be next since apparantly they are targeting end users. My point being that once SCO threatens end users it's in the best interest of Red Hat, SuSE and everyone else to do everything in their power to squash SCO. Preston -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com