As best I can tell, you are reading that article in such a way so as to believe it was heavily slanted in favor of Oracle and you cherry picked one sentence you

As best I can tell, you are reading that article in such a way so as to believe it was heavily slanted in favor of Oracle and you cherry picked one sentence you believe makes your point. Shrug. I don't really care if the article was pro Oracle or pro HP or pro you. Wasn't my point, and still isn't. The point I raised was that hiring a CEO that was involved in that mess shows really poor judgement on the part of the HP board, they had internal candidates that were far better choices IMO, and they do this. Another bad decision. My point was all about the HP board. And in rereading the article, I suspect that the author shares my point of view. It's not that it is a pro-Oracle point of view, it's a con-HP board point of view. I don't care about Oracle, I grudgingly respect that they wring every dime of profit they can out of whatever they do but I've had friends work there and from what I can tell it's a pretty crummy place to work. I do care about HP. I still have friends who work there and it used to be a fantastic place to work. I was hoping that getting rid of Hurd would be a step towards returning to the HP way and couldn't be more disappointed in what the HP board did.