4 ms·
Probably not some kind of corporate conspiracy. It's sad that so many people seem to agree with you. It shows a lack of critical thinking. I'm sure we'd all lik
by coderdude 15y ago
Probably not some kind of corporate conspiracy. It's sad that so many people seem to agree with you. It shows a lack of critical thinking. I'm sure we'd all like to believe in these underground corporate black-ops schemes but they're just fun to imagine, they're not reality.
- nitrogen 15y agoThe Halloween Documents of yore would suggest otherwise (http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/). There were also many telling e-mails revealed in the Comes v. Iowa legislation (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720...), particularly the ones regarding evangelism. You don't have to have a deliberate "conspiracy" (a word that often seems used to dismiss reasonable explanations of events) to have people with power using their influence to get other people with power to do things for their benefit (like file proxy lawsuits a la SCO). Their past behavior is in line with nextparadigms's comment.
- muhfuhkuh 15y agoSo, Microsoft's thoroughly confirmed connection to Baystar who invested in SCO group while they were embroiled in an IP lawsuit against IBM about Linux technology is "not reality" either?
- wladimir 15y agoHow can you say that in general? Dirty tricks do happen. It is naive to assume everything is squeaky clean. I also think it is disingenuous to use the word conspiracy here, as if he made some tinfoil hat statement.