SCO's war against Linux and the public domain is being funded by Microsoft who is using these bogus lawsuits to undermine an operating system that they can't compete with. Lets look at some facts I gleaned off of an Article from Linux Universe
From SCO's quarterly 10-Q report:
Microsoft isn't giving SCO money to develop their highly outdated Unix software. This is abll about supporting lawsuits and attempting to steal the work of those who have given their software freely to the common good. The bottom line is - Microsoft is subsidizing this lawsuit. It seems to me that those who are suing SCO or being sued by SCO could bring Micorsoft into the suit as a party.
Also - in the debate over "which operating system is better" I think it's fair to say that Microsoft - by cheating - has admitted through their conduct that they can not beat Linux on the merits. Microsoft knows that in the long run - Linux will prevail.
The long term problem with Windows is that it is processor and archetrure bound. So is Apple's OS-X for that matter. Linux runs on anything. If they cane out with a new processor tomorrow someone would have a Linux kernel for it within a week. Linux runs on the big iron machines like IBM mainframes and with the new 2.6 kernel about to be released Linux leaps way past Windows on scalability. So - Microsoft has reason to be afraid.
Linux on the other hand is hardly user friendly. Getting applications to work is not trivial as it is for Windows. Security in Linux is almost laughable as compared to Windows or Netware from the perspective of fine grain access control - but - access control lists are finally making their way into the Linux model. So Windows isn't going to go away any ime soon.
This is a link on how to modify an X-10 wall switch to give you dimming control from the button. Why they don't build it this way is a mystery.
Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."
As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.
On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."
Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."
Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.
"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."
Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."
Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
CNN had no comment.
by Peter Johnson
© Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
NOTE: The entire article here is posted in spite of what some people claim as their interpretation of copyright law. I am posting it for historical documentation reasons. Often these articles are taken down or changed after they are written. By archiving it in this way I preserve the historical record that this was actually said without the author being able to later change the fact that it was said, I mean no copyright infringement or plagery - but I assert a right to archive news released on the internet for the purpose of historical preservation. I further assert that this article is presented as NEWS and that the very definition of NEWS is that you're supposed to tell people what you found out. News is an announcement and I am announcing it.