This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature

Some advice for SCO/Microsoft ally Rob Enderle

By Joe Barr on August 12, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Dear Rob Enderle,

I want to thank you, a supposedly independent IT analyst, for the keynote speech you gave recently at the SCO Forum. It certainly explains a lot of things about where you are coming from: your bias toward the Microsoft and SCO alliance, for one thing; your bias against Linux and free software for another. No longer do any of us -- at Groklaw, NewsForge, or anywhere else -- need to puzzle over your motivations. You've made them extraordinarily clear.

Oh, sure. I do have a couple of things to quibble about -- and an observation or two to make -- but I commend you sincerely for opening up your heart-of-hearts and letting the world get a peek inside.

My major complaint about your speech is that the level of understanding of free software demonstrated in your talk approximates that which Baud has given an animal cracker. To say "You don't get it" in this case is like saying the known universe is a big place. You don't begin to grok free software, Linux, or the communities involved -- especially Groklaw.

A secondary observation: You must have a blackbelt in the art of FUD. No, please. Don't be modest. Your use of the rarely employed kata -- called "the rodent of pre-emptive denial" by its practitioners -- reveals great skill. After learning of your history with IBM, Gates, and Ballmer, though, I guess your expertise in this area shouldn't really come as a surprise.

After all, it was IBM who invented FUD. A classic example being the sales call made by IBM on a customer considering another vendor. One of the blue suits, sometime during the visit, would remark "I certainly hope the talk about their (the competitor's) financial difficulties is not true." If the customer asked for more details, the salesman could simply apologize for his "slip of the tongue" and change the topic. But whether the customer asked about it or not, a seed of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about the possible consequences of doing business with the competitor had been sown.

PJ a marketing exec?
In his speech, Enderle said of Groklaw: "The site is supported by a marketing executive whose future is tied to the future of Linux and has strong political skills." I asked Pamela Jones (PJ to Groklaw regulars) if this were true. She replied:

I'm not a marketing exec. He makes these things up, I guess. I also, as you know, do not work for or with IBM. I've stated so publicly, including in a letter to the editor for ZDNet, when they asked me to do so the last time this came up.

A simple Google search would have cleared up this matter, had he done one, so I see no excuse for him to say reckless, inaccurate things. I don't understand why anyone would say untrue things about someone. It's terribly wrong, in my view, and I feel he should apologize.

I'm just me. Groklaw is me. Me plus a large community that cares. Groklaw just tipped the 7,000 member mark, and it is still growing. That's all there is to it. I gather he imagines Groklaw is too good to be by little ole me, a nobody. Surely IBM must be behind it. But they aren't. Groklaw is a voice from the community, and if we are so effective that SCO and their gang feel they must attack Groklaw, I'm glad. But they should stick to the truth.

Of course, a girl could get positively tuckered out trying to teach the SCO group manners.

Microsoft took FUD to a whole 'nother level. Instead of using softly whispered asides during sales calls, they hired shills to blare the FUD over loudspeakers: Journalists, analysts, and astroturfing surfers are all employed to that end. The list of victims of such FUD attacks is too long to relate here. Let's just say that Novell received a rather large settlement recently for the damage done to DrDOS by Microsoft's FUD.

I still remember when -- about 1994, if I recall correctly -- industry analyst Phil Payne observed on Will Zachmann's legendary Canopus Forum on CompuServe that Microsoft was invariably doing exactly what it accused the competition of doing. That's another rare form of FUD you seem to have learned at the master's knee, grasshopper: Your speech is overly full of it.

For example, you said:

I understand the need for those that are deeply political or religious to misrepresent their opponents so that their own positions appear well founded. I also believe the practice to be stupid, primarily because eventually the truth does come out, but I still understand it.

Then you demonstrate how deeply you understand by saying of Linux users:

There are people who get up every day, work a 9 to 5 and go home to their families trading their lives for varying degrees of cash. In my view, though clearly not theirs, they are selling their lives very cheaply. These are wage slaves and the difference between people like that and a zombie is generally lost on me. Do you realize that many, I'm not saying all or even most, of the Linux supporters are like this, they have never coded anything in their lives, have never even played a video game, in fact the only reason they are supporting Linux is because it is a cause and their life lacks one. That is an incredibly sad group of folks, and I wonder what their reaction will be when they finally understand they are supporting software and not the second coming.

Thus proving Payne's observation not only to be correct, but still valid after all these years.

I'm curious, Rob, whether your apparent confusion about free software is real or feigned. It could very well be FUD of the third kind: that which plays on misconceptions that are already "out there." Certainly an analyst of your stature -- coming from an industry renowned for borrowing a customer's watch in order to tell him what time it is -- should have stumbled over a clue by now. That you haven't is something of a mystery.

You say there are three types of free software, then you go on to describe two types of proprietary software -- adware and time-limited trial versions -- with one false representation of Linux. In your own words:

With software there are several kinds of "free." There are free products that come with ads and increasingly with Spyware, there are "free trials" which time out at unfortunate periods of time (time bombs), and there are free enterprise products that cost 1,000s of dollars. Guess which one Linux is?

Are you really that ill-informed about the most powerful dynamic in IT today, Rob? Your statements show you know nothing about the subject of your attacks, the recipient of your bias, the villain of your tale? Or is that simply a reflection of how poorly informed you think the people who listen to you and trust your judgement are? It's hard to say for sure which is the case. My call on it could go either way.

There isn't any mistaking your animosity toward Groklaw; it is as obvious as the morning sun. If ever there was a dark kingdom that preferred darkness to light, FUD to truth, and confusion to clarity, it is Microsoft and its legion of shills. Your dislike for Groklaw is easy to understand: Its community is dedicated to challenging all the FUD it can find.

But you're certainly right about fanaticism going too far at times. I've experienced it myself, coming from Windows users when I skewered the myth of Windows being an easier, faster, better install than Linux. You see, Rob, although you wave your hands and sing hosanna in admiration of the depth of your understanding of human nature, you fail to understand that a certain percentage of every user group -- regardless of their software preference -- fits that mold. Unless, of course, you are simply being dishonest in your attribution of those traits to the free software world.

In closing, Rob, I would like to offer some advice: If you truly wish to stop being called a Microsoft shill, or a SCO shill, learn something about free software and the people who develop it. Tell both sides, honestly, without your very obvious -- and now admitted -- bias for the monopoly and your disdain for truly free software, and you'll find people in both camps listening approvingly.

Sincerely,
Joe Barr

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Some advice for SCO/Microsoft ally Rob Enderle

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Good one!

Posted by: Jessie Baller on August 12, 2004 05:12 PM
Thank you Mr. Barr for making my day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Interesting

Posted by: OwlWhacker on August 12, 2004 06:06 PM
To say "You don't get it" in this case is like saying the known universe is a big place.

Could this just be 'fear of the unknown'?

After all, it was IBM who invented FUD.

Just think, if IBM patented FUD, Microsoft and SCO would be cashless right now.

Do you realize that many, I'm not saying all or even most, of the Linux supporters are like this, they have never coded anything in their lives, have never even played a video game, in fact the only reason they are supporting Linux is because it is a cause and their life lacks one.

Do you know that many of the Microsoft supporters have never paid for legitimate Microsoft software, and the only reason that they are supporting Microsoft is because they're to dumb to learn anything new.

See, I can do it too!

#

The more I read from him...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 06:31 PM
the more I'm convienced he is the member of a group of people I really dislike, that is smart people with no common sense. And it's not that he lacks worldliness, but rather actually lacks the physical ability to deduce and link information into a useful format.

I use to work with this woman who just couldn't think for herself. She could quote you facts and figures, but when it came to use that information in a useful way, she had to have her hand held and basically drawn a map so she could get thru anything. All she was good for was telling things to so she could parrot them later when you needed a second person as a witness to verify what you just said. And that's all a shill is really, just a little mindless parrot.

People or companies that rely on shills are just trying to capitalize on the human behaviour that if two seperate people say it, then it must be more true and also on our need to believe what we are told. Many people know this and don't fall for the traps, but many people don't know or don't care and they listen to the BS.

And this is all that Enderle is. A person who obviously can't see past the check in his hand and respews what has been feed to him by those that do his thinking. He's nothing but a parrot.

#

Clear bells.

Posted by: Stumbles on August 12, 2004 07:53 PM
Nicely put Mr. Barr.



But lets not be to hard on Mr. Enderle. After all I for one am glad he is so open and honest about his biasness. It is refreshing to hear from such a type of analyst who believes so strongly that no matter your computing environment and needs he will always recommend something you do not need. Or at the very least cost you more than the solution needed.

#

Well answered

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 08:08 PM
I wish I were able to write like Mr Barr does! Well answered indeed. Thank you Mr Barr.

Filippo

#

Enderle

Posted by: madchris on August 12, 2004 08:08 PM
A person is clearly known and understood by the company he/she/it keeps.

#

I give Enderle credit for one thing...

Posted by: MrWinston on August 12, 2004 08:19 PM
He came clean.

#

Rob invokes Goodwin's law, in a public keynote.

Posted by: David Turnbulll on August 12, 2004 08:25 PM
Copied from my posts in Yahoo, with my own permission.

Enderle invoked goodwins's Law, and no One noticed. Were gonna win. Of course we new that earlier but, hey now the other side confirms it.

He compares's Linux Users to Nazi's and other hate groups.

>>In college, both graduate and undergraduate, I was fascinated with human behavior. I watched the tapes of the Nuremberg experiments that showcased how people put in positions of authority could be ordered to torture and kill other people and that the majority of those tested in the study failed the "humanity" test. Groups of people can do really bad things and not failing the humanity test became a personal goal.

Stop for a moment and take the macro view, how does the behavior of the Linux attack force that has been focused on SCO and Microsoft really differ from other hate groups. If I even named these groups I would lose you so I won't, but isn't the behavior similar?

#

Re:Rob invokes Goodwin's law, in a public keynote.

Posted by: David Turnbulll on August 12, 2004 08:27 PM
Now formatted sorry.

Enderle invoked goodwins's Law, and no One noticed. Were gonna win. of course we new that earlier but, hey now the other side confirms it.

He compares's Linux Users to Nazi's and other hate groups.

>>In college, both graduate and undergraduate, I was fascinated with human behavior. I watched the tapes of the Nuremberg experiments that showcased how people put in positions of authority could be ordered to torture and kill other people and that the majority of those tested in the study failed the "humanity" test. Groups of people can do really bad things and not failing the humanity test became a personal goal.

Stop for a moment and take the macro view, how does the behavior of the Linux attack force that has been focused on SCO and Microsoft really differ from other hate groups. If I even named these groups I would lose you so I won't, but isn't the behavior similar?

#

Re:Rob invokes Goodwin's law, in a public keynote.

Posted by: W. Craig Trader on August 13, 2004 12:20 AM
FYI, it's <A HREF="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/" title="faqs.org">"Godwin's Law"</a faqs.org>

#

Re:Rob invokes Goodwin's law, in a public keynote.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 09:04 AM
"Groups of people can do really bad things..."

Ya think? This guy compares Linux advocates to Nazis so lets compare the two groups:

For the record, the Nazi's killed:
-- 20 MILLION Russians
-- 6 MILLION Jews
-- 600,000 French
-- 350,000 Brits
-- 290,000 Americans

The list goes on and on!

I don't remember seeing a single news article of Linux groups comitting mass murder and genocide.

This single statement comparing Nazis to Linux advocates invalidates everything this guy has said and makes me wonder if he really understands the suffering caused by Germany and the Nazis during World War II.

#

Re:Rob invokes Goodwin's law, in a public keynote.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 11:17 PM
This comparison is still inadequate. Even if you could overlook something so horrendous as the killing the Nazis were a small subversive part of the population that assumed power outside of popular elections, largely by intimidation. They assumed they had a right to take over much of the free world and totally control the lives of those they considered lesser beings. To this end they had Joseph Gerbels and his ministry of propaganda in control of all information as a central part of their control. If one could discount the killing then Microsoft resembles the Nazis and Enderle a Gerbels wannabe.

If Linux and FLOSS supporters have any parallel here they would be more like the French underground, trying to unseat their invading masters who are trying to cement their Orwellian control of all information access.

What you can always count on from a liar is they will always project their evil onto others, but the evil they proclaim is being done by their adversaries is what is coming in fact from them. People tend to stick to what they know.

#

Does this technique have a name?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2004 10:23 PM
"What you can always count on from a liar is they will always project their evil onto others, but the evil they proclaim is being done by their adversaries is what is coming in fact from them. People tend to stick to what they know."

So, what you are saying is, that if you want to get to know someone like that, you get them fired up, and talking about their enemies, and they will end up describing themselves?

#

Passionate or religious fervor?

Posted by: br3n on August 12, 2004 09:03 PM
he makes fun of working people in a 9 to 5 job as wage slaves
those same 9 to 5 are also executives that he wants to listen to him
strange
we have a company called scox suing customers
now we have an analyst insulting possible future customers
is this not a new textbook study on how not to do business?
by the way
endorle has a religion also and it now has a name
FUDDITE = the worship of dollar and power.
thanks for a great article Mr.Barr
-:) br3n

#

Re:Passionate or religious fervor?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 11:47 PM
Well, Rob sounds as a crook who addresses a gathering of crooks and laughs at people who work hard. I don't think it was what he intended to say, but it was what he said. Or maybe he did mean it?

#

Irony, and a solution

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 09:11 PM
One irony for me personally is that it was "free" software that drove me to dump Windows XP. My teenage daughter was confused by some messages at a web site, and downloaded some of the most intrusive, despicable, ad-ware I ever saw. Advertisements popped up everywhere as soon as I logged in. When I tried to uninstall it, this charming message came up, "Keep Free Software Free." Then, the "uninstaller" directed you to download another program, from them, to uninstall the ad-ware. Now I may be dumb, but I am not stupid. Finally, the rescue came from "Ad-Aware" by LavaSoft. It was at that point that the entire family was moved to RedHat 9. Not one ad-ware program has been seen since. Yep, Rob Enderle has it right - Free Software Sucks (if you use his definition of what free software is).

Now, the other point I want to make is that Rob Enderle apparently has a true desire to be needed. He needs to be listened to, admired, and respected. His job hopping probably comes from that fact alone - once he wears out his welcome, he's gone to greener pastures. And so, the solution here is to make it quite clear to him that he has worn out his welcome. Your letter, Mr. Barr, is a great start. It's polite, but firmly tells him that you do not admire or respect him because he doesn't serve a worthwhile purpose. He'll burn out, and change careers pretty soon if we can just make it plainly obvious we are not falling for his disinformation. Possibly letters to the news organizations that normally and frequently quote him, with a copy of his SCO keynote attached, should also go a long way to "cutting off his air supply."

#

Right on Joe.

Posted by: Jeremy Hogan on August 12, 2004 09:34 PM
Time after time I've seen Mr. Enderle use his hurt feelings over getting flamed as an excuse to mount a "high brow" assault on the Linux community.

We are all just mindless zealots who don't even use the product we claim to love, he says.

He claims time and again to not hate Linux. I almost believe him. But as soon-to-be-former President Bush would say: "He hates our freedom."

I can't wait to see what whining sniveling drivel he comes up with to try and counter a well stated well thought out argument.

#

Re:Right on Joe.

Posted by: opteron_user on August 13, 2004 10:44 AM
> Time after time I've seen Mr. Enderle use his hurt feelings over getting flamed as an excuse to mount a "high brow" assault on the Linux community.

Time after time I've seen members of the Linux community use Mr. Enderle's negative Linux opinions as an excuse to ferosiosly attack him.

I also recommend you not to use that nick name to give your own opinions - it's not good PR for Redhat.

#

Re:Right on Joe.

Posted by: Ronald Trip on August 13, 2004 07:43 PM
Well, well, aren't we on the moral high ground here? It's plain and simple. Human nature reverts to an eye for an eye when under attack.

If Mr. Enderle doesn't wish to be attacked, he should stop his slanderous and libelous hostilities. Disguising libel and slander as an opinion doesn't make a person any less a despicable individual.

To make a quote from the musical Chicago : "He had it comin'!!!"

#

Re:Right on Joe.

Posted by: Jeremy Hogan on August 14, 2004 11:24 AM
It's the opposite of a nickname. It's my real name, and I'm entitled to personal opinions. Clearly you understood it as an opinion of mine, and not Red Hat's.

#

Re:Right on Joe.

Posted by: bex on August 21, 2004 06:22 AM
"Time after time I've seen members of the Linux community use Mr. Enderle's negative Linux opinions as an excuse to ferosiosly attack him."

True, but would you expect any community to have an absence of loadmouthed idiots misrepresenting the community? Also, would you _not_ expect the blowback if you posted inflammatory and (for the most part) completely untrue comments about a large community project? It's a lot like poking a bee's nest with a large stick repeatedly and crying that you got stung.

I will however say that it's unacceptable behaviour for people claiming to advocate OSS sending threatening letters to _anybody_ with an opposing viewpoint.

Mr. Enderle is a bias, ignorant man pretending to be professional. He needs to be more mature in his opinions and comments. If he can't even understand the reprocussions of his own actions then I seriously doubt he can advise anybody on the best thing to do with their IT interests.

#

The only refuge of a scoundrel.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 09:52 PM
Alas, when you have nothing of value to offer, you simply find "the greater fool" to pay you for the output of your "Baseless Opinions Without Experience, Learning, or Skills"

If you take the first letter of each word, you get FUD.

#

Enderle doesn't deserve this much attention

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 09:55 PM
He started out in marketing, switched to bean counting, then took his massive IT background gained in those fields into consulting.

He is unremarkably average in abilities and his analysis, if you can sully the integrity of good analysts to call it that, is worse than useless.

You'd think with a marketing background he would've learned some basics about presenting a message but his talk at the SCO forum demonstrated a lack of critical thinking, intelligent argument and savvy.

So these are Microsoft's friends: Anderner, Enderle, Didio, ADTI, Baystar, Forbes and SCO. What a collection. Not exactly the cream of intelligent society. I think that speaks volumes about the character of the beast of Redmond.

#

Re:Enderle doesn't deserve this much attention

Posted by: roblimo on August 13, 2004 06:16 AM
I wouldn't include Forbes in this group. Forbes has run many articles about Linux, open source, and free software, and most of them have been either neutral or positive. They've run a few commentaries from people not in favor of the GPL, but so have we.

- Robin

#

Re:Enderle doesn't deserve this much attention

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 10:39 AM
Let's put an end to this discussion right now. Enderle is uninteresting. What else needs to be said?

#

Re:Enderle doesn't deserve this much attention

Posted by: Jeremy Hogan on August 15, 2004 01:05 AM
We could just end it, we could ignore him and hope he goes away, but everything you need to know about marketing and messaging you can glean from Vlad the Impaler.



Nice crisp short, memorable name. Vlad.



A qualifier that says clearly what he is known for. He's an impaler. Among other things, to be sure. But you clearly know his specialty.



And the bodys/heads on pikes along the road to his castle let you know that he delivers. And you'd better not test him on it.


<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-D

#

...and for the love of Pete,

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 10:28 PM
PLEASE go to gnu.org (it even works in IE!) and look up the definition of "free software" in the GPL FAQ. "You keep on using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

#

Who?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 11:34 PM
Who the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... is this guy Enderle, and more importantly who gives a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....?

#

indemnify ?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 11:38 PM
"quote-begin"
Only HP has the power and resources to truly indemnify a Linux buyer and those of you on UnixWare, FreeBSD, and Microsoft products will probably get the last laugh "quote-end"

Oh yeah ? And who is going to indemnify those win (looser) users who have bought crippled software that *had* to run with an anti-virus (just another paid license !). Slammer: "catch the criminals we are innocent" (of our incompetence). Read the MS EULA: "anything that happens is not our fault<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."

#

Re:indemnify ?

Posted by: MrWinston on August 13, 2004 02:03 AM
Read the MS EULA: "anything that happens is not our fault<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."



The only indemnification MS entitles you to is a refund of the purchase price of the product, and, from what I've heard, you've got to go through some red-tape to get that. They assume absolutely no responsibility for any data loss or hardware damage resulting from the installation of their products. So, by agreeing to their EULA and proceeding with the install, you've effectively washed their hands of any damage to your system or data.

#

Re:indemnify ?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 10:19 PM
Exactly. IANAL though I wonder why does the law give licenses of this kind legal basis for so much freedom (there is some irony here). Don't you thiink that a program that has proven by practice to be broken securitywise (many times) could be said defective, and entitled to an automatic refund ?

#

Trying to make nice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 12:01 AM
Looks like Rob's trying to explain in a LinuxInsider article.
<A HREF="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35732.html/" title="linuxinsider.com">http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35732.html/</a linuxinsider.com>

#

Re:Trying to make nice

Posted by: Jeremy Hogan on August 14, 2004 11:51 AM
Grab the shovel and dig I guess.



If I'm to understand his rebuttal, it's okay to call people idiots, so long as they are using "free" software.



PJ from Groklaw (started well before her new position) and who's career is "tied to the future of Linux" is a propagandist, but working for MS is okay and not propraganda.



It's really baffling, he uses spyware as a solid example of freeware, but not as an example of what happens with a poorly designed and secured OS and browser?



And I don't know how he expects people "are missing the hidden costs" of the free software, they are successully using.



Poor Amazon, I bet they'll hate giving back all the money they've saved on Linux and Intel, once they figure out that... wait... what?



The sad thing is, they don't pay him to be right, factual, reasonable or even sane. They pay him to get this stuff pollenated across the web in quotes, rebuttals and flames.



Thank goodness calling someone an idiot doesn't make it true, it just exposes his own lack of class and dulled sense of irony.



Actually, he doesn't call "someone" an idiot, he grossly generalizes a group of individuals that are too busy proving him wrong to bother telling him he's wrong.



He's an embarrassment to his own cause, but hey "Never interrupt an enemy while they are making a mistake" so more power to him.



Every time he opens his mouth, it's an excuse to correct him, and to clarify the facts.

#

Is True Objectivity Even Possible?

Posted by: Prototerm on August 13, 2004 01:16 AM

Each of us has an opinion. That opinion may be based on information or emotion, but we have one, nevertheless. What's important is how we view those that disagree with us.

Mr. Enderle quite obviously sees proprietary software as important to the future of IT, and Free Software, a potential detriment.

Most of his opponents, he seems to feel, are simply not aware of the risks associated with the use of free software (of course, his examples prove that he has a different definition of free software from the rest of us).

Anyone who spreads statements that he disagrees with are guilty of dealing in propaganda (of course, his own statements are not themselves propagana, are they?): "I did refer to Groklaw as a propaganda site, which it is. Any site that claims to be against something and then generates a lot of it is a propaganda site in my view."

In addition, it would seem that, if that "propaganda" consists of the facts, then those statements are "FUD" as well: "Groklaw claims to be an anti-FUD site, but it generates more anti-SCO FUD than almost any other site I could mention. ". I'm beginning to feel like Alice on the other side of the looking glass!

Mr. Enderle claims in his article on Linux News that he's been mis-quoted and misunderstood. "If you separate yourself from bias, you will see that I never said that all folks who buy the concept of free software are idiots -- only some of them.". Perhaps, but I really think it's an issue of not understanding how a rational person could disagree with him. You have to either be an idiot, or part of some diabolical Master Plan to do so.

The truth is, if Microsoft wasn't such a monopoly -- if there was enough competition -- then Linux wouldn't be seen as a threat, it would be just one more competitor. It is a threat (to the Monopoly, anyway) because it's one of the few alternitives to Windows, and because it's immune to Microsoft's standard Engulf and Devour strategy.

If Mr. Enderle had more of his facts straight, and separated his keynote from his own bias, then perhaps more people would have listened to him. . There's nothing wrong with having an opinion others dislike, but there's a right way and a wrong way to express it. His keynote speech was definitely the wrong way.

#

Re:Is True Objectivity Even Possible?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2004 12:38 AM
You wrote:

"Mr. Enderle quite obviously sees proprietary software as important to the future of IT, and Free Software, a potential detriment."

Not quite right - more like:

"Mr Enderle quite obviously sees proprietary software as important to the future of the IT industry, and Free Software, a potential detriment."

Essentially, most of the people attacking free software (Darl, Didio, Gates, and Enderle) are people who make their living selling overpriced goods and services to people who are rapidly waking up to discover that "the emperor has no clothes", to mix metaphors. These people simply cannot see any way for themselves to continue to make a living if basic software is free, and you actually have to earn a living based upon your skills and your ability to deliver actual value.

We all need to remember this, when evaluating statements from these people.

#

Thanks Joe.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 01:59 AM
Joe,

Thank you for having the courage and the ethical backbone to say something that needed to be said.

Keep up the good work.

#

Not human

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 02:39 AM
I have not read the article, because I have stopped
considering Rob Enderle a human long ago. When I
see the name, I skip the entire text.

DG

#

A deliberate goad

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 05:40 AM
I have the impression that he is attempting to goad an extreme response so he can point to it and say "See! What did I tell you?" There is a segment that gets too emotional and goes too far. Just try to remember: Let SCO people be the nuts, don't try to emulate them.

#

Re:A deliberate goad

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 02:14 PM
Enderle has always behaved this way. Before he focussed on Linux, it was Apple (Macintosh) users who bore the brunt of his ravings.

Before him it was John Dvorak. After him it will be...?

#

Enderle tried but didn't buy -- he's a thief

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 08:13 AM
He said one of the three (he only knows of three, and he claims to be an expert?) types of free software is time-limited trial-wear, where you get to try-before-you-buy for a limited time. He then cites an example of such software uninstalling itself after the trial period expired -- in the middle of a demo he was giving! Horrors! He was doing WORK, giving a demo that he expected would result in BUSINESS for HIMSELF, and yet he didn't bother to pay for the softwear he was using? Give me a break! No wonder he thinks the people who use free softwear are idiots. He's right, the people who use ad-wear and spy-wear and demo-wear to save a buck ON THE JOB (people like himself) are, indeed, idiots. Trial-wear is to try it before you BUY it. If you like it, you're supposed to BUY it, not keep using it to MAKE MONEY FOR YOURSELF WITHOUT PAYING THE AUTHORS. If you use it at home and the trial period ends, too bad. If you use it at work and the trial period ends, you only have yourself to blame for the consequences of your theft.

Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest, and nobody else has commented on it.

#

Ah Mr. Enderle...How dare you!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 08:33 AM
"There are people who get up every day, work a 9 to 5 and go home to their families trading their lives for varying degrees of cash. In my view, though clearly not theirs, they are selling their lives very cheaply. These are wage slaves and the difference between people like that and a zombie is generally lost on me."

Mr. Enderle, my father was one of those 'wage slaves' you talk about. Selling his life cheaply? He did that so he could put food on the table for a family of five, send the to good colleges and have a comfortable retirement with his beloved wife. His 'varying degrees of cash' was barely adequate, but he worked hard at his 9 to 5 jobs and managed to do everything he set out to do. Did he sell his live cheaply? No, it came at a great cost to his family since we didn't get to see him nearly as much as we would have liked. According to you, that makes him a bad person.

I know that he would have loved to be able to sit at home and type insults and derogatory comments about folks he had never met, but my Father was above all that and would have treated you with respect even AFTER you had insulted him.

You should be ashamed.

#

Birl Genderle

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 11:21 AM
HaHaHa, this Birl Genderle guy is just way too kewl.

Now, over here, we don't call people bending over and licking some ass for money "consultant" or "analyst"

"Consultant" ? Uhu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sure, yeah
"Anal-yst"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, sounds kind of hitting it, no ?

Sorry, guys n gals, I need to leave. You know, I'll see my "consultant" and she is already waiting for me to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... * wink wink nudge nudge

BTW: A Big Thank You to Groklaw to keep us professionally informed about that soap<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

PJ works at OSRM; is that what Enderle meant?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 01:18 PM
Pamela Jones is Director
of Litigation Risk Research at Open Source Risk Management, LLC. Is that what Enderle means when he said "marketing executive whose future is tied to the future of Linux"?

(And why doesn't PJ say that this is her job, in the sidebar of this article?)

See <A HREF="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-04-2004/0002102965&EDATE=" title="prnewswire.com">http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT<nobr>=<wbr></nobr> 104&STORY=/www/story/02-04-2004/0002102965&ED<nobr>A<wbr></nobr> TE=</a prnewswire.com> for the press release from last February.

--Marnix

#

Re:PJ works at OSRM; is that what Enderle meant?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 02:22 PM
Because Director of Litigation Risk Research is certainly not the same thing "Marketing executive".

One more thing: she started Groklaw months and nonths before being offered the OSMR position.

#

Excellent as always

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 05:20 PM
Thank you, Joe, for a truly excellent reply. I really enjoyed reading it. I wonder, though, if it is even worth your time since M. Enderle is such an obvious caricature that his message can only be taken seriously by uneducated professionals.
Frankly, I hope he stays that way, on the other side, as his messages are so stupid and twisted that they become funny.
Jean-Luc

#

One thing still confuses me about this

Posted by: nikolic on August 13, 2004 06:01 PM
Linux is open sourced. If there is any infringement, why hasn't the source that is in question simply been compared to what is currently in the kernal?

If it is the same, then the developers can simply replace it.

Granted, this may take a year or so for the community alone, but chances are that the larger vendors would likely accelerate the process, considering that they would stand to lose revenue. It would still be a cheaper matter than any lawsuit war.

Anyone know of the details that they are actually referring to in the source?

#

Re:One thing still confuses me about this

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2004 01:25 AM
there are major members of the community who contribute to linux and also have licensed unix from SCO for commercial unix products. some of these have done a line by line compare of the two kernels. they did find a few functions that had not been properly credited(they were licensed under a BSD license), and proceded to patch those credits into linux. Since that was all that was required of the code that these organizations found, any valid SCO complaint was actually resolved many months ago, and it only took a couple of months to clean everything up.

The problem for SCO is that that didn't net them any cash. We knew it wouldn't, but they don't seem to be rational humans either. Truth was that they did better financially as a Linux company than they are doing now as a Unix/Legal amunition company. Seems to me that if they have any desire to survive long term that they need to become a linux/unix company, drop the legal amunition garbage and re-earn the respect they need to operate successfully in an open source world.

#

No, it's too late for that

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2004 10:35 PM
The community would never accept a product from them. They have definitely gone beyond the "point of no return" (that is a very precisely defined technical term that says that it takes more energy to abort than to continue and return as you originally planned. The effort to repair their reputation would be greater than starting TEN new companies).

Also, they have taken Microsoft's money. If they betrayed MS, it's a toss up whether IBM or Microsoft would leave a bigger smoking hole in Utah, but either way, SCO is finished.

#

One thing still confuses me about this

Posted by: nikolic on August 13, 2004 06:55 PM
Linux is open sourced. If there is any infringement, why hasn't the source that is in question simply been compared to what is currently in the kernal?

If it is the same, then the developers can simply replace it.

Granted, this may take a year or so for the community alone, but chances are that the larger vendors would likely accelerate the process, considering that they would stand to lose revenue. It would still be a cheaper matter than any lawsuit war.

Anyone know of the details that they are actually referring to in the source?

#

Re:One thing still confuses me about this

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 13, 2004 10:21 PM
It hasn't been compared because SCO won't show it to anyone, or tell anyone what it is. They've shown a couple of samples to people under non-disclosure agreements -- or perhaps I should say 'alleged samples', since the couple that have leaked out have found to be similar not only to SCO-owned code (if there even is any, since Novell disputes SCO's ownership), but to code from older versions of Unix from which SCO's version is derived -- and which have been freely disseminated.

They have argued that some Linux header files infringe their copyrights, but most hold that this is unlikely to hold up in court -- the names and numbers given in those are also part of the Open Group's Unix standard, which is public knowledge, and there's only a limited number of obvious ways to make a header file out of that information. It'd be essentially the same thing as a phone company trying to sue a company printing a competing phone book for having the same names and phone numbers listed, in the same (alphabetical) order, and in the same format of "name (tab) number".

So... no one's done such a comparison, because SCO hasn't given anything that can be compared.

#

Re:It is a lie told so often by "paided shills"

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 17, 2004 08:47 AM
There is NO "infringement"
There is NO copied code from sco unix to linux
There is code copied from linux to sco unix it is called the linux personality layer. Ransome Love issued a press release that he was afraid that someday Linus Torvalds would sue (old sco Caldera,New sco now Usl ) Pick a name They change names as often as they change claims.

  It is an attempt to get bought out by IBM with a pump and dump scam thrown in for good measure.

#

Open Letter Posted Here

Posted by: krmmills on August 14, 2004 12:05 AM
Dear Mr Enderle,

I have to be honest with you, I have very little knowledge of who you are or what your career has
been up to this point, but I applaud your speech (excerps I have read that is) as the SCO keynote
speaker. Open Source and Linux/BSD needs many more people like you, because, honestly, the
lengths to which you go to paint Linux and free software as illegal, immoral can and will only help
legitimize this form of software development and distribution. If your views were subtle, and your
thought process logical (or pseudo logical as the case may be), you would then probably be a
hinderence to Open Source

I hope to read much more of you, and honestly hope that other companies beyond
SCO (dare I even dream a keynote address at MS, I doubt it, you are a little too out there for them to
give you a forum directly) pay for your reviews, spread your views, and give you the chance to
speak in public over and over again. Open Source and Free software could not have asked for a better
proponent than you. Keep up the good work.

I am going to post this letter in it's entirety on the web, as a kind of open letter, just for the reason
that I don't want to read '...but I applaud your speech', taken out of context. I will not post any reply
you send, simply because I don't have any right to send you something unsolicited, without you having
a chance to reply in private, and force the condition that "anything you say will be made public" on you.

Kevin

#

My take on Rob Enderle

Posted by: Joe Klemmer on August 14, 2004 07:48 AM
I think I finally figured him out. Here's my take on him...


<A HREF="http://x-nc.blogspot.com/2004/08/i-finally-understand-rob-enderle.html" title="blogspot.com">http://x-nc.blogspot.com/2004/08/i-finally-unders<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> and-rob-enderle.html</a blogspot.com>


I have come not to hate Enderle, but to pity him. It's been a while since I've seen anyone as blinded from the truth as he is.

#

One year anniversary

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2004 03:11 AM
<A HREF="http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13000597" title="internetweek.com">Reasons to Shun Open Source-ry</a internetweek.com>

by Booby Winderle

<A HREF="http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/08/12/2248240&tid=" title="newsforge.com">Covered on Newsforge</a newsforge.com>, as a Newsvac item

And <A HREF="http://newsvac.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=32526&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=&cid=64405" title="newsforge.com">my response</a newsforge.com>.

Pegged him for what he was. A year ago, almost to the day.

#

Thank you

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2004 12:56 AM
Thanks Mr. Barr well said.

with enemies like rob who need friends - just keep talking Mr. Enderle - you will give more people even more reason to put linux on their computers.

I agree - your little world versions of free software suck.

by the way - did I say you were an IDIOT. So please keep talking.

#

from Rob himself...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 19, 2004 02:49 AM
When my initial comments to Mr Enderle actually appeared to be answered by a real person, I went one step further...

Rob Enderle wrote:

> Nice, and so well spoken. You don't know me and by way of introduction
> you call me a name. I'm sure that says a lot about your own brilliance.

Nice and so well spoken. You don't know me, but by implication in
titling your own presentation, call me an idiot.

However, since this ended up in a real person's mailbox, which I hadn't
really expected, a couple of key issues you may want to revisit:
(quoting from
http://pl.caldera.com/2004forum/agenda/Enderle_ke<nobr>y<wbr></nobr> note_SCO-Forum2004.html)

1. "Now I know that some of you are rapidly writing your own "rough
interpretation" of what I am saying for Groklaw and have your hands
poised over the FUD keys. I find this ironic given Groklaw is an
Anti-SCO FUD propaganda site but I understand the need for those that
are deeply political or religious to misrepresent their opponents so
that their own positions appear well founded. I also believe the
practice to be stupid, primarily because eventually the truth does come
out, but I still understand it."

While one does get PJ's own interpretation with it, Groklaw is a place
to actually read the court documents themselves. Are you implying that
the actual court documents are somehow misrepresenting the facts?
Perhaps this would be something to take up with the judge in this case...

2. "To the Groklaw spies, look around, these are people who work for a
living, why do you feel that hurting them helps you or your cause?"

And this isn't FUD how? How exactly are you making the intuitive leap required to associate the dispersal of facts as hurting the individuals you claim to care so much for?

3. "Stop for a moment and take the macro view, how does the behavior of
the Linux attack force that has been focused on SCO and Microsoft really
differ from other hate groups. If I even named these groups I would lose
you so I won't, but isn't the behavior similar?"

Which attack specifically? The numerous trivial court cases masses of
linux users are bringing to bear on SCO/MS? Odd, I don't remember seeing
any of those in the numerous newspapers/newsfeeds I read.

4. "I have a serious problem with people who are abusive, particularly
those who use any excuse to cross the line into physical, emotional or
verbal abuse. In my view this is uncalled for and the people who utilize
this practice, this is a direct quote for Groklaw, aren't worth the air
they breathe."

Yet you side with a --convicted monopolist--. Another oddity.

5. "That is why I stood up for SCO; they were being attacked because
they were vulnerable. Those that attacked them did so because they could
in a clear effort to deny the employees, the stockholders, and the
customers of SCO their rights and, as a number of veterans have reminded
me from time to time, heroes died for those rights and I believe it is
ourů. No my, obligation to uphold them.

Now I hear from the Linux folks that it is SCO that is the bad guy here
taking away the rights of those that worked hard to contribute to Linux
and to that I say Bull Shit. SCO, unlike the RIAA which is targeting
kids, is going after large well funded companies who are perfectly able
to take care of themselves. In all cases the firms being challenged have
more resources and are larger than SCO. If there is one thing firms like
Daimler Chrysler don't need is a bunch of "hang'em high" bigots who
think of themselves as judge, jury, and executioner. "

These two paragraphs really should have been farther apart, because
perhaps then one wouldn't realize the blatant contradictions in them. In
the first paragraph, you steadfastly state your desire to "stand behind
the stockholders and employees", but in the next you imply that it's ok
to opportunistically sue big companies because they "are larger than SCO".

6. "This is what I refer to as the big company disease. It has its roots
in power and the lack of oversight on it, it flourishes when
measurements and personal goals are in conflict with the conscience of
the company and it can do terrible damage when any member or group gains
too much power over another. You saw the extreme of this when you viewed
the pictures of that prison in Iraq."

You're mixing your visuals horribly, what exactly are you talking about
here? IBM? MS? Iraq? I'll go out on a limb here and state that what I think you are doing is attempting to associate the war in Iraq, where real tragedies are occuring, to the extreme abuse of power by both large corporations. Therefore, one could extrapolate that you disagree with MS's predatory contracts and business practices. Oh wait, that must not be it...you must be very complicated....

7. "With software there are several kinds of "free". There are free
products that come with ads and increasingly with Spyware, there are
"free trials" which time out at unfortunate periods of time (time
bombs), and there are free enterprise products that cost 1,000s of
dollars. Guess which one Linux is?"

Ahh, the good ol' "give em some BS options, then make em pick one " path. At this point, you aren't even trying to maintain a cogent argument.

Oh, and don't forget that free software that comes from MS which even
major analysts have now suggested dumping due to it's problems, IE.

8. "Free enterprise software is a joke and the folks are not laughing
with you. IBM used to regularly give Notes away for Free to compete with
Microsoft Exchange"

Odd, didn't MS do this with IE?

9. "However, the use of the product is free, and often you are on your
honor, if you like the product, to pay the developer for it. This is a
good way to use Free, as in free trial, as in the first one is free, as
inů Well you get the point."

Oh, more sticky innuendo? Once again, implying that F/OSS software is
akin to drugs is not FUD how, exactly?

I realize this will probably dump right into the bucket, because, let's
face it, I'm just another nameless idiot to you, but biases aside, both
the original speech, and the rebuttal (which was similarly brilliant)
mark you as nothing more than a parrot, happily repeating what you've
been told to say.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya