Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Thread beginning with comment 249095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Come clean about SCO
by kaiwai on Wed 20th Jun 2007 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Come clean about SCO"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I did read the link, and have since the beginning of the SCO trial. I've read every stinking last piece of it. Briefs, motions, filings, exhibits, financial statements, and so on.


Good for you, but it seems that all the reading doesn't seem to actually have informed you.

If you want to wave SUN's flag and hold them harmless, so be it. I still cannot, and will not, say SUN is trustworthy until they clear the air about SCO. If you don't like that, then I can't help you.


Hey, I'm not the one with the chip on the shoulder; it was you screaming and yelling over how 'evil' and 'underhanded' Sun was.

I mean, geeze, Sun does some stupid things, and if you've ever tuned into me on my blog or other forums, I'm going to be the last one to appologise for Sun - but if you do want to attack Sun for flaws, the SCO conspiracy is nothing more than that, conspiracy theories.

And I never screamed at the top of my lungs. And you're the one saying grand conspiracy. All I see is business manuvering, which is why I said they didn't even need to apologize.


Excuse me, but you're the one jumping up and down over non-existant conspiracy's. Sun has already 'cleared the air' - they bought some IP - end of story, full stop.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Come clean about SCO
by 2fargone on Wed 20th Jun 2007 10:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Come clean about SCO"
2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

You have a bad habit of putting your words into other people's mouths.

Sun has not cleared the air. You may be pacified, I am not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

robilad Member since:
2006-01-02

Whoever ends up owning SCO's dead corpse after the litigation, will have an interest in recouping their legal costs. A way to do that may be to go after anyone who was behind SCO's deal.

It's a lot more likely that was Microsoft (and they'd present a very attractive litigation target) than Sun.

In particular, even if Sun actually was complicit in that game, it would make more sense to split the defense, and let Sun sell out Microsoft to the court, *once the litigation starts*, since if there was indeed a conspiracy against Linux that Sun was part of, then they'd have some great things to use against Microsoft in court.

So, I'd suggest patience as the best strategy: if Sun wasn't part of the SCO game plan, giving them the benefit of doubt is a good thing, and if they were part of the game, it would be strategically stupid to make it attractive for Sun's new leadership to have to defend themselves along with Microsoft, so giving them the benefit of doubt does not hurt.

Either way, we'll find out in a year or two. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1