On TechRepublic: 12 tech terms that make you sound old
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 26 of 57:
Next »
« Previous
Re: But you have to admit...
"As I said, IBM seems to be doing just fine defending their position, granting this absolution dosen't look like it was needed and may cast a cloud over everything."

Your house of cards still seems to depend upon IBM's involvement in this decission. If this action was taken with no IBM input, what IBM needed may never have entered into the equation. Novell and IBM may be teleconferencing as we speak going over these same issues and how they make IBM look. We just do not know.
Posted by: Mack DaNife   Posted on: 02/13/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Poor SCO will be fighting on a lot of different fronts.  DonnieBoy | 02/12/04
sec filing  guido_z | 02/12/04
investors are getting ready to bail out?  nite_w0lf | 02/12/04
Amazing!  IT_User | 02/12/04
will m$ come to the rescue? or just watch sco die? (nt)  stephen732@... | 02/12/04
If you're a known padron of an arrested hit man, you'd walk to the exit...  dicktaurus@... | 02/12/04
MS involvment  MG_z | 02/13/04
Correction...they ARE the laughing stock....  nograin | 02/13/04
Will be???? (nt)  jnonneman | 02/12/04
Purportedly?  IT_User | 02/12/04
Why hasn't anyone asked ...  George Mitchell | 02/12/04
looks like sco gonna need mote money  JWatson77 | 02/12/04
why NONE of the former owners of Unixware have come to SCO's defense  MG_z | 02/13/04
(NT) Ding, Dong, The Wicked SCO is Dead !!!!!  Plain Logic | 02/12/04
One thing I find curious is, why?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/12/04
Still hanging with SCO I see.  zd-spam | 02/12/04
Still playing dumb-dumberer, NAG? Of course IBM needs no absolution...  dicktaurus@... | 02/12/04
nothing to do with IBM per se  hipparchus | 02/13/04
Not what I read....  DarbyOhara | 02/13/04
Thanks Darby, I was only asking a question but...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
I thought I answered your question  hipparchus | 02/13/04
Re: One thing I find curious is, why?  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
You may well be right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Re: You may well be right.  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
But you have to admit...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Re: But you have to admit...  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
Now there is the truth!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Sequent, Not IBM  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
Yes, but why?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Here's why...  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
Unfortunately that can't be done  John Le'Brecage | 02/13/04
But, IBM hasn't done anything wrong???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Novell is not really forgiving a "sin"  dscherf | 02/13/04
Not quite true.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
No, they haven't  dscherf | 02/13/04
Hard to keep all the players straight.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Funny that you should ask...  dscherf | 02/13/04
I didn't know that. Maybe this time around?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Maybe!  dscherf | 02/13/04
silicon graphics  Louis Ross Focke | 02/13/04
IBM bought Novell (just like MS bought Novell), but ...  George Mitchell | 02/13/04
OOPS! I meant 'just like MS bought SCO'  George Mitchell | 02/13/04
You guys are getting wrapped up in headlines  IT_User | 02/13/04
You are of course right... But,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Can't play it ant any time  IT_User | 02/13/04
But why wait until now?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Let's follow this  IT_User | 02/13/04
Like MS and SCO  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
My answer  MG_z | 02/13/04
This sort of moves IBM to the Background.  nite_w0lf | 02/13/04
actually no this does not  afterbrnr | 02/13/04
RE:To " actually no this does not"  nite_w0lf | 02/13/04
Finish SCO off....  nograin | 02/13/04
Novell can require SCO...  Update victim | 02/13/04
The bottom line  chawil@... | 02/13/04
They stole the code, now they are stealing money!  Jose.Pinchero | 02/15/04
IBM should pay, they stole the code = thiefs!!!  Jose.Pinchero | 02/15/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Meet Doc