|
|
| First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 08:45 PM EDT
|
A guy in Canada is nice enough to fill us in on the SCO Show from its first stop there: It was mostly a room full of SCO resellers. And they were not too big on having a love in. Nothing hostile, however not one positive comment for the morning's session. During the "we be so profitable" section of the spiel, one reseller in the crowd asked "where does the money come from?" The response was largely a pointer to the SCO source initiative. The response? "What you are profitable in will not make me profitable." Wow. That was good. One raised the points that this quibble is hurting his business. SCO's stance is that they'd love to settle this tomorrow (har har). Stance not bought by aforementioned reseller - the paraphrased retort was "litigation will resolve nothing that I am interested in. SCO needs to adapt to the times, or it will perish". Wow wow. People seem to get this. I like it.
I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. NTPv4 was a listed big feature on a slide of 10 to 15 upcoming enhancements. How does an NTP enhancement get mentioned as a 'big' feature? Wow. I never knew it was this bad. Maybe I should lend my old 486 running Debian from '97 to Pizza Hut - it sounds like they could use the upgrade. Even the guy presenting was a leetle embarrassed by the state of the OS. When mentioning PAM support his comment was "finally!". A crowd member picked up on this & asked "when you say 'PAM - finally!', who are you implying you are behind?". The response was pretty generic, other than to point out that rigorous certification testing was a portion of the delay. Also of note was the volume of OpenSource software in the box - OpenSSL/SSH, Apache, Samba, CUPS, Gimp-print, bash ... you name it. Maybe their idea of building a super-OS involves a fistful of RPMs. He tried to convey his amazement at the fantastic future of UnixWare by telling the crowd that they would someday be able to print in colour from their colour printer (thanks to features in gimp-print).
I don't want to burst any SCO bubbles, but if McBride is right when
he said "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value" , why then, is SCO distributing Samba and the
Gimp, both GPL'd software? Guess how many people showed up? Less than 20. That left more than 40 seats empty. And yes, HP is a sponsor, he says. A Groklaw reader, mdchaney, called Blake Stowell today, and he confirmed: "I just called Blake Stowell at SCO and asked if HP was sponsoring the road show. He said that they definitely were. I asked why their name wasn't on the web site. His response was that they had asked to have it removed from the web site, but they were definitely still a sponsor. HP just lost a laptop sale." If you're curious about just how behind the times System V was in 2001 compared to other UNIX versions, you might find this "2001 UNIX Function Review" of interest, available as a PDF here or from HP. They came in dead last, comparing Solaris 8, HP-UX 11i, Tru64 UNIX 5.1, AIX 4.3.3, and UnixWare 7.1.1. On page two of the document, comparing scalability, it says this about UnixWare: UnixWare's scalability fundamentally depends on the capabilities of the Intel server architecture, which will not complete its transition to 64-bits until later this year. UnixWare supports advanced enterprise servers based on current IA-32 processors, including the Unisys ES7000, a mainframe-class machine. UnixWare can be configured with up to 32 processors and up 64 GB of memory. Although UnixWare supports all 32 processors in ES7000, the maximum SMP configuration for which UnixWare has produced credible database benchmark evidence is eight processors. As with AIX and Solaris, UnixWare supports file
systems and files up to 1 TB. The only thing the report mentions UnixWare beat out most of the others on (except Solaris) was running Linux applications as binaries. Well, now, isn't that a coincidence? The timing of the Monterey episode was of interest too. On page 12, it mentions that in late 1998, SCO announced "it would no longer position UnixWare as an enterprise platform when IA-64 arrived, choosing instead to embrace the AIX kernel as the foundation for the next-generation 'Monterey' product."
It did this, it says, because "despite its early success in lining up OEM partners, SCO was unable to continue the investments in UnixWare required to compete with the heavyweight UNIX systems from Sun, HP, IBM, and Compaq."
So, that SCOStory about IBM ruining their fabulous success isn't matching this report, is it? The report concludes: Since then, SCO ... announced that it would sell all of its UNIX products, including OpenServer and UnixWare, to Caldera Systems, Inc.
This just proves, once again, that whatever contract beef they may feel IBM should be one-half of, the other half isn't today's SCO, but the old SCO, which still exists as Tarantella. Then it says that the company plans included staying with IA-32 platforms, and introducing the Linux Kernel Personality for UnixWare to "allow it to run Linux applications": Caldera plans to position UnixWare as a kind of super-charged Linux environment that is fully
compatible with other Linux distributions, but has more powerful functions under the hood than the traditional Linux kernel. To deliver on this promise, however, Caldera will have to marshal sufficient development resources to keep up with the investments of the established enterprise competitors. So when SCOfolk say they don't plan on killing Linux, could it be they mean it, that they plan on prostituting it for their benefit instead? But that marshalling the resources part. That's the fly in the ointment. Marshalling resources...hmm. Oh, you mean like with a lawsuit?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
I am willing to bet that many resellers are pissed at SCO because of their
actions. Nothing SCO is doing is benefitting any reseller so they have a
right to be pissed. The funniest (and saddest too) part of this is that SCO
appears to be completely clueless about how to even put on a good
show. If the only people that are going to show are pissed off resellers,
what then are really accomplishing except infuriating the resellers even
more by bragging about their profits from the SCO source license that
do not trickle down to the resellers.
Probably the best thing that could come out of this freakshow is
hopefully resellers will finally say "to hell with SCO" and revolt.
Yes, we
know that SCO will eventually wither and die but they appear to only be
hastening the demise by making sure that truly piss off every last person
including those that sell their crap.
The only thing left I want to know is what is SCO going to say at the next
roadshow. Are they going to spout the same canned crap or come up
with something new? Wish I could go to one of these.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored - Authored by: raindog on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 11:52 PM EDT
- First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored - Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
I had signed up for the Newark show, but won't be able to make it. Is there
anyone in the NY/NJ area who wants to take my seat?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
I am in the market for a notebook and I was going to look very hard at an HP
because an HP employee that participates in the Mandrake Cooker mailing list had
said that HP is going to be certifying their notebooks as ready for Linux, even
if they have no plans to sell them pre-loaded with Linux. This was very
attractive because I didn't want a big hassle during the Windows delete, Linux
install phase of the setup.
After seeing them (HP) sponsor the SCO Road
Show, I just decided that my notebook will be an IBM T
series. When I make the purchase, I'll e-mail Carly and let her know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Upholder on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
<I>Their definition of IP (I've never seen a formal definition, and so
some of the things on the list amused mildly): Copyright, Contracts, Methods,
Trade Secrets, and Know-how (Know-how? How about "stuff we have" -
can that be a IP subject too?).</I>
Well, we now have a better idea of what they consider to be their IP rights.
It's too bad for them that only 3 of the items in their list have legal
meaning...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
| I confess to being baffled by SCO's willingness to maintain this charade. They
must be spending $60K or $70K to put this roadshow on. Why?
They have
never made money from this business. The software, and the resellers that came
with it, have been a loser since the day they bought it.
The only purpose
these resellers can possibly have in the SCO Grand Plan is to bring in some
minor amounts of cash while management tries to make a business out of filing
lawsuits, and threatening to file lawsuits.
One of two things must happen to
SCO, and relatively soon. Either they will go bankrupt pursuing these lawsuits,
or they will win one of them and no longer need the money-losing UNIX software
business to sustain them. The one thing we can be certain is not in their future
is growth and profitability in this business they bought from the Santa Cruz
Operation. Analysts are openly talking about Sun having to drop its
proprietary version of UNIX in favor of linux. If Sun can't make a
business out of UNIX (and they are losing their shirts), SCO hasn't got a
prayer.
So why bother with roadshows and the like, to sustain what must be a
dying business? It would seem that some nice, cheap, emailed newsletters would
keep these resellers chugging along just as well, for however long SCO has
got... which isn't that long. There is hardly any defensible reason to spend a
dime propping up this reseller business.
Is there some angle in the lawsuits
that calls for putting on a big show about how important this UNIX business is?
Does anyone believe a "road show" would make a difference to a judge? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
From the original article at http://www3.sympatico.ca/dca
rpeneto/sco.html:
And heavy mention of HP's support. Reference
was made to their web site removing their logo, however they emphatically
associate SCOs current operations and HP's approval. Nothing to substantiate,
however.
For those who missed it in the last article's comments, I
called Blake Stowell today and emailed Martin Fink of HP to ask for
clarification of HP's position. Like another poster in this thread, I was
preparing to drop a couple thousand dollars on a new HP laptop when I remembered
their sponsorship. Both men confirmed that HP is sponsoring the roadshow. As a
result, they lost a sale. Full details at this thread:
HP is
sponsoring the road show
If your purchasing decisions have been
affected by HP's support of SCO, let them know. Mr. Fink stated that they have
SCO users as customers, so they have to placate them, too. My retort, which was
made all the more true by this report, was that the number of potential SCO
customers was insignificant next to the huge Linux market. And these are people
that HP doesn't want to anger.
As I also mentioned to Mr. Fink, I find
it deceptive to ask SCO to remove the HP logo from the web site while HP was
still a sponsor. If there's nothing wrong with it, why hide it?
We need
to make a list, and link to it in the left column, called "Fingers in the Pie"
to keep track of companies like HP that are trying to hide their involvement
with SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: junji on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
Is there any way to stop SCO selling their stuff with GPL'ed
software? How about all copyright holders of free software
developers take legal action against SCO(if possible)?
I have been wondering how many commercial companies who
made money from free software contributed to free software
developers... For example, Apache group should have got
some millions money from companies who selling/running
Apache.
I can't imagin the world w/o these free softwares. Who can
provide web service w/o freeware? Well only Micro$oft can.
Probably HP and IBM and Sun can provide complete
non-GPL'ed system too but would it be cheap enough? Would
it be compatible to others? Competitive with M$? No...
BTW, I don't think IBM is our side. They use Linux and free
software for purpose. They (can) use free software to avoid
"Anti Competitive". If they do sell their stuff for free then
probably competitors of IBM take legal action that "Anti
Competitive" and/or "Dumping". But as long as they sell free
software stuff very cheap, almost free, then who can claim
that? Some people call it "New Biz Model". But company who
has power and money go for this "biz model" then "she takes
whole cake". Without supporting free software developers I
can't call it "New Biz Model". So far IBM seems contributing to
FSF so it's OK if FSF is OK with that.
-- Junji
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
I am waiting to see if the press picks up on this roadshow and reports what
the resellers are saying, or will they just regurgitate the press releases that
SCO makes about the roadshow.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
Australian government and SCO
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/08/1065292635400.html
Others
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/6541598.
htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/6594915.
htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
Hi everyone. I found this today:
http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,2963%7C%7CA%7C314%7C,00.html
Yankee Group in owned by Reuters. I don't know if it's worth researching
further, but I found the connection interesting.
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yankee == Reuters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:17 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
It looks to me like SCO is going to forgive $1.2m by Vista (or swap it for Vista
stock more precisely)
Page 11
http://ir.sco.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=CALD&CIK=1102542&FID=1104659
-03-20700&SID=03-00
As of July 31, 2003, the $1,000,000 convertible note receivable discussed above
as well as both $100,000 notes receivable were outstanding and in technical
default; however, the Company had not demanded repayment. No allowance for the
past due notes receivable was recorded as of July 31, 2003 since the Company and
Vista continue to work together under the license agreement discussed above and
the Company is evaluating its option to convert the notes receivable to equity
in Vista.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
| "Their definition of IP (I've never seen a formal definition, and so some of
the things on the list amused mildly): Copyright, Contracts, Methods, Trade
Secrets, and Know-how...
Those are all examples of things that can be
treated as Intellectual Property. Everything these days is born copyrighted, but
we still have the old dual system of patents. a patent application must clearly
explain how to make and use the invention. Since the application is printed
verbatim when the patent issues, all of this "know-how" will become public. What
if a patent is pending or isn't granted? This know-how can still be protected as
a trade secret.
Just for the record, the Reorganization Plan under which
Caldera Systems, Caldera Holding, and The Santa Cruz Organization exchanged
property is a matter of public record. In fact, the portion of the IRS rules
used - section 351 is for zero loss or gain property exchanges. The term
"Intellectual Property is exhaustively defined in the Caldera 1 August 2000 SEC
8-K Filing.
I think that it's a matter of general knowledge that Caldera was
saying one thing, and doing another, i.e. the press reported that the deal
wasn't made to obtain Unix, but rather to gain access to the reseller
channel.
Still, if you read the 8-K covenants and statements about the trade
secrets all being intact, and assurances that none of SCO's executives knew of
any unauthorized disclosures or misappropriation, you have to wonder what
standard of truth and accountibility they are being held to? They were certainly
aware of the judge's ruling about trade secrets in the BSDI case, and had
licensed the ancient Unix themselves under terms that disowned any derivatives.
They had also sold irrevocable rights to their own competitors. This was a
property exchange valued at around $91 million in other peoples money, i.e.
the shareholders. The definition used here is the only legally controlling one,
because SCOG has no rights that didn't change hands right here.
By the way,
according to the 8-K, there should be a seperate side letter, the "SCO
Disclosure Letter" listing the GPL as one of the many valid licenses that
entitle them to use third party IP.
Since this comes up so often I'll put a
complete extract of the legal definition here for those who are
interested:
"Intellectual Property Rights" means all of the following
worldwide intangible legal rights including those existing or acquired by
ownership, license or other legal operation, whether or not filed, perfected,
registered or recorded and whether now or hereafter existing, filed, issued or
acquired:(i)patents, patent applications, and patent rights, including any and
all continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, reissues, reexaminations or
extensions thereof;(ii) inventions (whether patentable or not in any country),
invention disclosures, industrial designs, improvements, trade secrets,
proprietary information, know-how, technology and technical data;(iii) rights
associated with works of authorship (including without limitation audiovisual
works), including without limitation copyrights, copyright applications and
copyright registrations, moral rights, database rights, mask work rights, mask
work applications and mask work registrations;(iv) rights in trade secrets
(including without limitation rights in industrial property, customer, vendor
and prospect lists and all associated information or databases and other
confidential or proprietary information), and all rights relating to the
protection of the same including without limitation rights under non-disclosure
agreements;(v) any other rights in proprietary technology, including software,
all source code and object code, algorithms, architechture, structure, display
screens, layouts, inventions, development tools and all documentation or media
constituting, describing or relating to the above, including, without
limitation, manuals, memoranda, records, business information, or trademarks,
trade dress or names anywhere in the world; (vi) any rights analogous to those
set forth in the preceding clauses, and any other proprietary rights relating to
intangible property including without limitation brand names, trademarks,
service marks, domain names, trademark and service mark registrations, and
applications therefor, trade names, rights in trade dress and packaging and all
goodwill associated with the same; and (vii) all rights to sue or make any
claims for any past, present, or future infringement, misappropriation, or
unauthorized use of any of the foregoing rights and the right to all income,
royalties, damages and other payments that are now or may hereafter become due
or payable with respect to any of the foregoing rights, including without
limitation damages for past, present, or future infringement, misappropriation,
or unauthorized use thereof; and (viii) rights under license agreements for the
foregoing.
I hope this helps explain some of their bizarre sounding claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:37 AM EDT |
I have added a page to my SCO/Linux Infrequently Asked Questions (IAQ). It is
an imaginary cross-examination of an
SCO spokeperson about the legal status of JFS, one of the technologies that IBM
added to Linux. It's still a bit rough around the edges. See:
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/jfs.html
As I was writing it, trying to imagine how SCO might answer the questions, I
came up with a germ of an idea about how SCO might defend its expansive notion
of derivative works. I don't think I've ever seen this line of argument
anywhere else. It may be complete hogwash, but that has never stopped SCO
before.
In the spirit of devil's advocate, I'll lay it out here:
1. In the original Unix license with AT&T, modifications to the AT&T
software by IBM were to be treated the same as the
original AT&T software.
2. Specifically, neither the original AT&T software nor the modifications
could be disclosed to parties not authorized by AT&T.
3. The side letter stipulated that IBM would own any such modifications, while
AT&T would still own the originals.
4. With regard to the previous point, the side letter was a clarification, not
an amendment. This notion is critical.
5. In particular: notwithstanding IBM's ownership of their modifications as
acknowledged by the side letter, the restrictions on disclosure still apply.
6. Conclusion: by adding JFS to Linux as well as AIX, IBM made an unauthorized
disclosure of a derivative work.
Note that this argument is based entirely on contract law, not on copyright law,
just as SCO has said all along. It is not affected by the fact that IBM holds
the copyrights to JFS.
This line of argument seems to me to be at least superficially plausible. If
there's any chance that a court will take it seriously, IBM had better be ready
to counter it.
Scott McKellar mck9@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/ct/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: rtrentc on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:10 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:20 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 03:29 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- OT: addition to IAQ, about JFS - Authored by: stanmuffin on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 10:39 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
This is a little off-topic, but here's another Ransom Love quote on adding
stuff that came from Unix to Linux:
"The concept is, on the components that we cannot or choose not to -- from
a business perspective -- publish under GPL, we will publish under other types
of licenses which may give access to the source, but not necessarily under the
same terms as the GPL. So there are components of the UNIX kernel, there are
components of other things, that we might provide in a much more open fashion so
that our customers can have access to the source and make the necessary changes
that they need. So it gives them protection. The concerns that people have about
Microsoft would not be the same in our case. Now in some of the technologies the
changes would come back to Caldera because we intend to maintain them as a
benefit to the customer and a benefit to Caldera."
"Absolutely. There are things that we can and will contribute, which I
think are fairly significant. Where we want to augment Linux itself -- the
underlying infrastructure -- we will probably use the GPL license. We would
almost have to if you want to have that accepted as an integrated part of the
underlying bits and bytes. There are layers above Linux that we may provide back
in open source that may not be GPL'd. Again, it depends on what the business
objective is that our customers need -- what it is that they're wanting. Case
in point, some underlying infrastructure for Volution -- our management layer on
top -- we use the BSD license. The reason we did that is because it was at such
a level that the GPL license would force a lot of our partners who want to
develop a new set of technologies, to expose components of their infrastructure
that they consider proprietary and they weren't willing to do that. So they
would rather have a BSD license ... so we used BSD. We will use the appropriate
license with the appropriate technology, to accomplish the specific business
objectives that we have in regards to that technology."
These are from an interview here:
http://www.consultingtimes.com/LovePub.htm
Alex
[ Reply [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
If SCOX is breaching IBM copyrights though distribution without a licence, then
are not SCO's resellers also liable as they are distributing without a
licence?
Can not IBM sue all of SCOX's distributors?
Just a thought.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
... since, after the recent termination of the European SCO resellers'
relationships, the N. American resellers are going to wonder if they're next.
From what I understand the European outfit -- the one that was summarily cut-off
and the president escorted out of SCO headquarters [1] was only doing a small
amount of their total business with SCO products anyway. While that's probably
true of most of their resellers -- and, quite possibly, how they justified the
move -- in today's economy every little bit of business helps. Some employees
at resellers will likely lose their jobs if SCO makes a similar move in the US.
What the heck is SCO thinking? Did they think that folks would be clamoring to
attend these dog and pony shows to hear about how they're taking on big, bad
IBM? Good grief! If this first stop is any indication, I'd bet that a lot of
attendees are going to be looking at their watches before it's half over
wondering why they pissed away billable hours listening to that drivel.
The
D.H. Brown report cracked me up. After the title page that listed Unixware,
that UNIX flavor was barely mentioned throughout the report except to explain
that it had little or no support for the enterprise capabilities that the report
concentrated on. I'd bet that the copy of SVR4.2 that I was running back in the
early/mid-90s ('93/'94?) is not all that different from the current Unixware
offering.
Finally, something about recent news regarding SCO has me very,
very puzzled. How can these guys not be extremely embarassed by the
reaction of the companies they're been threatening and the change in attitude of
the press/analysts? They seem to be outgunned legally. The companies they have
targetted have either sued them and others have to be getting ready to.
Article after article is find hole after hole after hole in their arguments and
rating their success in winning this battle as slim to nil. If this first stop
in the SCO Road Show is any indication, they better plan on facing an increasing
number of people who are just not buying their story and are getting damned
angry about it. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the limo back to the airport
after getting a bunch more pointed questions like they got in this
stop.
Regarding HP's involvement: we currently use HP products and software
support (well, DEC... no wait, Compaq... aw heck) and I have to wonder how much
I can trust them as a vendor after getting into bed with SCO like
this.
----
[1] - Boy oh boy... that was ever a classy thing to do. I'll
bet it did wonders P.R.-wise as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: beast on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Before everybody gets too excited about this, please take into consideration
that HP may be stuck supporting TSG and their road show. I think it's likely
that HP has contracts with TSG that predate the current legal actions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
Just noticed:
Smallfoot,
plugged during
the dog-and-pony-show, is apparently a Linux
distribution. That's not
apparent in the
PPT
or
HTML
presentations.
Do you think it's released under the GPL? Do you
suppose the source is
available?---
The Wright brothers were not the first
to fly...they were the first to LAND. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
If you want to shake things up try asking this:
"What guarantees can SCO give that you won't be cutting VARs out of the
distribution channel like you did with Dupaco in the Netherlands?"
Extra points for copying the article and passing it out.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34018_p.htm
Of course, you probably won't get to see the whole show, as I suspect you will
be asked to leave, but it should be a heads up to any VAR who thinks that SCO
values them and that the statement "Contracts are what you use against
parties you have relationships with." doesn't apply to them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
Does anybody have documented numbers about how many SCO employees there are, how
this number has changed since McBride took over, and how many OS developers it
has? I have heard the fired most all the OS developers, but do we have hard
numbers here, like is it in the 10-q or any other place? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO employees? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I have a problem with dumping on HP for sponsoring this show, at least until I
find out certain information. I would like a few questions answered, like-
"Did HP know what SCO was going to do, lawsuit-wise, when they agreed to
sponsor this show?" "Is HP prevented by any contractual agreements
from pulling out of this show?"
If it can be proven that HP got involved in sponsorship knowing fully well that
SCO was going to pull the stunt it did, fine, fire away. If it can be proven
that HP could have pulled out without breaking any contracts, again, fine- fire
away. If we can't answer these questions, I don't think it's entirely fair
to disparage HP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
