Re: Love on board

2003-11-12 Thread Shawn L Johnston
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 17:45, Tony Alfrey wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 02:02 pm, Collins Richey wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:01:57 -0600 "Andrew L. Gould" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > So yes, he had a hand in many of today's circumstances; however, I > > > choose to disa

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 02:02 pm, Collins Richey wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:01:57 -0600 "Andrew L. Gould" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > So yes, he had a hand in many of today's circumstances; however, I > > choose to disassociate today's SCO from Ransom Love's Caldera that > > creat

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Andrew L. Gould
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 04:46 pm, burns wrote: > On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 17:25, Andrew L. Gould wrote: > > > > I tried to clue the management in on the > > product's status; but the manager I spoke to has never heard the term > > "sunk cost". > > More likely he has and that's why he's still try

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread burns
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 17:25, Andrew L. Gould wrote: > I tried to clue the management in on the > product's status; but the manager I spoke to has never heard the term "sunk > cost". More likely he has and that's why he's still trying to sell it. -- burns

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Andrew L. Gould
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 04:02 pm, Collins Richey wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:01:57 -0600 "Andrew L. Gould" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > So yes, he had a hand in many of today's circumstances; however, I choose > > to disassociate today's SCO from Ransom Love's Caldera that created > >

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Collins Richey
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:01:57 -0600 "Andrew L. Gould" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So yes, he had a hand in many of today's circumstances; however, I choose to > disassociate today's SCO from Ransom Love's Caldera that created eDesktop > 2.4. (Ahh, the memories of my early newbiness.) > Speaki

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 09:48 am, Chris Kassopulo wrote: > Former Caldera CEO Ransom Love joins Progeny board > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/11/0333248 Way cool! Is Progeny stock traded publicly? I can put in a short sell order first thing Wednesday morning! -- Tony A

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread dep
quoth Ken Moffat: | Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this former ceo the one who lead | Caldera to it's present state of affairs? as a matter of fact, no. he was the guy who thought up unitedlinux. about all you can really pin on him is the silliness that followed edesktop 2.4, in which the best

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Michael Hipp
Ken Moffat wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this former ceo the one who lead Caldera to it's present state of affairs? Love can be blamed for a number of bad decisions at Caldera, but compared to the current despotic regime at SCO, he looks like my very best friend. Michael __

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Andrew L. Gould
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 01:33 pm, Ken Moffat wrote: > Collins Richey wrote: > >On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:48:30 -0500 Chris Kassopulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Former Caldera CEO Ransom Love joins Progeny board > >> > >>http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/11/0333248 > > > >I haven't

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Ken Moffat
Collins Richey wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:48:30 -0500 Chris Kassopulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Former Caldera CEO Ransom Love joins Progeny board http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/11/0333248 I haven't kept track of Progeny, but after visiting their website, one thing is

Re: Love on board

2003-11-11 Thread Collins Richey
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:48:30 -0500 Chris Kassopulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Former Caldera CEO Ransom Love joins Progeny board > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/11/0333248 I haven't kept track of Progeny, but after visiting their website, one thing is apparent: In spite of t