🚀 go-pugleaf

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>...I also recommend that, if you are of a mind, and either are or might
> potentially be a customer, that you let SCO know what you think of their
> action.  (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.)

That may be of some limited interest to them, but I'm not sure what the
point would be.  Is there any reason to think that SCO gave in to Lotus for
any cause other than being "out-lawyered"?  Perhaps, if a lot of folks
talked to SCO, it might indicate that their estimate of the effect of the
decision was low (i.e., that the loss of SCO Pro will cost them more than
they thought)...but I'd think they have a good handle on sales and trends,
so they shouldn't get much of a surprise.

As you say, under the circumstances it's not surprising that SCO decided as
they did.  The problem lies elsewhere.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.