[clug] Re: Reaction: SCO case: Australian LUGs says it's a storm in a teacup

Michael Still mikal at stillhq.com
Tue Jun 24 12:30:59 EST 2003

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Sam Varghese wrote:

[ CLUG folk, this is mid conversation with Sam, but I thought it was now
appropriate for the list to see Sam's behaviour ]

> > It's not a case of not bothering, but of simply missing one email. Was
> > there any attempt at repeated contact before such a strong
> > statement
> > was made?
> Nothing strong about the statement, merely a fact. The email was sent
> last Monday, and I waited until yesterday to run the story. Nobody can
> claim there wasn't enough time.

The statement _is_ strong. How else would you describe "did not bother"?

What if he was overseas? I have no idea where he was, but your
statement is still unnessesary, especially given other LUGs seem to have
had the same experience with you. I imagine if Linus Torvalds was
unable to comment, you would have said "did not respond for comment"
instead of "did not bother".

Also, email is not reliable. What is the mail had been lost?

> Let's put this in perspective - last year when I wrote to Patrick
> Volkerding, asking him if he would be willing to answer some
> questions, he replied in two days. Or rather a day and a half taking into
> account the time difference. You know what he does.

Statistically, one sample doesn't mean your behaviour is acceptable in
all cases. Based on posts I am seeing from Adelaide and Sydney urser's
groups, they seem to have had the same experience with you.



Michael Still (mikal at stillhq.com) | Stage 1: Steal underpants
http://www.stillhq.com            | Stage 2: ????
UTC + 10                          | Stage 3: Profit

More information about the linux mailing list