To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy)."
Would you please elaborate on this? It's an angle I've never heard before.
>> "In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy)."
> Would you please elaborate on this? It's an angle I've never heard before.
Assuming the obvious, i.e. that Microsoft is to SCO what the US/the CIA was to the Afghani Mujahedin in the 1980s, this is about MS having tried to deal with a dangerous, non-corporate competitor.
It's not really a secret that MS is afraid it will someday lose marketshare on the (corporate and consumer) desktop. Given the simple fact that MS' desktop marketshare size and revenue is already dangerously big (inhibiting innovation and competitive pricing), the only way for MS is down. In the long run, that's good for Microsoft, but hey, it hurts.






Member since:
2006-08-09
This case has been irrelevant for quite some time, from a lawyer's point of view. MSFT has already taken its "embrace" move.
In the end this is, essentially, still about a software gorilla that got obese, and refuses to lose weight. It has little to do with Linux/free software or any other specific competition(/enemy).