|
SCOforum: A Bully Would Like to Change the Subject |
|
Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:10 AM EDT
|
Remember bullies in school? My memory from seventh grade is that they'd torment you with a gleam in their eye until something threatened them, upon which they'd suggest shaking hands and stopping. Maybe the teacher got wise, or a bigger kid took your side, and suddenly the bully wanted to let bygones be bygones. My super logical brain always found that suggestion insulting, because why would I want to stop just as *they* were about to get *theirs*? I have always found bullies oddly funny, although decidely not fun, both in swagger mode and in their fear, but their behavior, when they are worried they might suffer a little teeny bit themselves, is the hilarious part. Bullies, I always found, have a low pain threshold themselves, despite nonchalantly dishing out pain to others. So when the pendulum swings, and it always does sooner or later, I find their worried backing away strangely comical. Thus the news coverage from SCOforum of the current state of mind of The SCO Group made me smile. It seems SCO would like to muffle all that litigation talk. It's hurting business, don't you know. So now that the rape-and-pillage-litigation business model looks to be falling flat on its face, they'd like to drop the talk of litigation, and its consequences, and talk about business, actual tech business, instead. You know. Like having customers for actual products someone might want to actually buy and stuff. What does that tell me? That maybe they have no confidence their litigation has a chance of succeeding, they see water flooding into their ship, and so they are scurrying about with Plan B, in hopes of staying afloat? That they think we are stupid? How's this for a headline: "SCO CEO: Even if court bids fail, we will survive," by IDG's China Martens. Sounds like bully flop sweat to me. Has SCO ever before admitted losing could happen? If so, I must have been dozing off. What I remember McBride telling us was that it was win or go out of business and that they'd win. Um...now that I think of it, doesn't the latest quarterly mention going out of business as a real possibility if it loses against IBM? So... which is it? I can't keep up. Personally, I tend to believe they tell the truth more so to the SEC, because of the jail time and all if they don't. Here's why they say they can survive, because "SCO's Unix business is profitable and the company is due to shed its heavy financial burden from legal fees come January 2006." The legal cap is going to keep them in business. And I'm so sure their legal help will be simply outstanding once the law firms are no longer being paid. (Look for Darl McBride's brother to shoulder a heavier load.) I suspect this new message isn't because they suddenly got nice. I think they are trying to reassure their existing customers that they will still be around:
"When we started this and people asked me that question ['What happens if you don't win in court?'] I said, 'As a company, we're screwed,'" Darl McBride, SCO CEO and president said in an interview Friday. "Today, I don't believe that to be the case. We've got a cap on our legal expenses and our Unix business is profitable. If you put that together, you've got long-term sustainability."
Long-term. Let's define our terms. Does "long" mean to the end of time? For a decade? Five years? Or just until IBM and/or Novell and/or Red Hat bleed them dry when they prevail in the litigation and collect damages? That's an appropriate legal term, don't you think? Damages? After all the damage SCO caused? If SCO loses and has to pay all their intended victims damages, will SCO still be in business? Just asking.
That article also gives me the impression that so few were expected to show up this year in Las Vegas, they decided to have many mini-forums, to camoflage the low numbers. They tell it the opposite way, of course. The article puts it this way: SCO is trying something a little different with the Forum this year, according to McBride. "We're not trying to drive everyone to Vegas," he said. Instead, SCO will take the reseller event on the road as what it calls "geoforums," making stops in Europe, Asia-Pacific and South America after the U.S. event. McBride expects the Las Vegas Forum to likely attract 300-plus attendees, he said.
There was indeed a smaller attendance than last year or the year before, according to Robert Dutt's report: The show is much smaller affair than the last two because the company says it is making this Forum primarily a North American event, although vice president Jeff Hunsaker did note that 20 countries are represented here, "although in smaller numbers." Yeah. Right. I remember the newsletter offering free software and a free room if we'd just please go to Las Vegas. Well, maybe not me, personally, but the rest of you would have been welcome. McBride insists SCO isn't anti-Open Source, by the way. His Open Letter yesterday trash talking Linux must have been a mirage in the Nevada desert, then. He clarifies:
"The roots of SCO are tied into open source," McBride said. "My position is very clear, we're not anti open source, We’re just against someone taking our products and putting them into open source [software] without our permission."
How do McBride and SCO deal with the odium the litigation has generated within the open-source community? "I’ve become very hardened," he said. "At one level, you have to be tough enough to take a lot of verbal shots." He speculates that the goodwill OpenServer 6 is generating in the market might eventually rub off on SCO itself. "It would be nice," he said. Ah. A wistful bully. Is there anything sweeter? Of course, it would be difficult to be anti-Open Source, when your company depends on it so heavily, something SCO's Erik Hughes tries to justify:Despite the company's public objection to open source operating systems, Erik Hughes, the company's senior director of product management and strategic alliances addressed the company's controversial inclusion of many open source applications with its operating systems. Indeed, the company somewhat paradoxically includes "hundreds, if not thousands" of open source applications with its operating systems, including Web browsers, database software and graphical environments. But Hughes said there's a difference in the way SCO offers those applications, and the way most Linux vendors offer those applications.
"The important thing is that we support it, we stand behind and we will take a call and deliver fixes where they are needed," Hughes said. "We stand behind it as a complete offering, from the kernel, all the way up to the app server and database server. Our open source strategy shouldn't be a surprise to anybody."
And that is different from Red Hat or Novell how? IBM doesn't offer support? Who are these people talking to? Who is listening? McBride in his Open Letter made it sound like using Linux is like paddling your own canoe upstream, with no reliable support. Remember McBride comparing Linux to volunteer firemen -- sometimes they aren't there? Since when is Red Hat or Novell or IBM, for crying out loud, not there? Are the SCO guys stupid, or do they just think the rest of us are? Remember that name, Erik Hughes, by the way. We have excerpts from his deposition. It's a job pulling it all together from the paper exhibits, but hopefully soon you'll get to read it.
Jeff Hunsaker shows up, and he is honest enough to admit that the lawsuits hurt them as a tech company:
General manager Jeff Hunsaker of SCO's Unix division acknowledged however that sales have been hurt by the lawsuits.
"We can't mix innovation with litigation. The noise that has arisen because of us suing IBM over this issue has been damaging to our core business," Hunsaker told vnunet.com." Mr. McBride would like some of Windows' business, as he says in this Vnunet interview, and he goes on to suggest a solution instead of litigation:
McBride: We've got a good part of the solution [with SCO's OpenServer 6.0]. But it appears that we are going through this big death match for another few years now. I believe that the people we are competing against – even though they put out press releases to the contrary -- know that we have intellectual property problems. They are trying to mask those problems with massive PR campaigns. We are ready to go fight it out, but there probably are other ways to go at this.
Question: What do you mean?
McBride: In terms of the problems we have vis-à-vis Linux, if the other side would sit down and recognise what these problems are instead of just gloss over them, we would come to a resolution much quicker.
Question: What would such a resolution look like?
McBride: We think we have been damaged pretty severely with respect to our intellectual property. One opportunity is for the people who are out there pushing Linux to sit down and work with us, see how we can get a resolution.
Short of that, we are set to go to the full conclusion. The case is not winding down, it is gearing up. In the mean time we are focused on enhancing and developing the next generation of Unix. That's clearly a message to IBM/Novell to do a deal, to pay SCO something to make it all stop. But why should they, when they are winning? I have a suggestion. If you would like Linux to recognize a problem, how about showing Linux folks the allegedly infringing code? No? Well, just show it to a judge then, any judge.
1 And as for massive PR campaigns, when was the last time you heard IBM quoted at all about the litigation? The only massive PR campaign I recall is the SCO PR machine. Remember Mr. McBride bringing his scrapbooks of news clippings proudly onstage at the first SCOforum after the IBM lawsuit was filed? That article is titled "SCO softens its tone". Nah. I remember him talking exactly like that many times before, particularly in the early days. Just give him some money, honey, and he'll go away quietly. Otherwise, it's litigation up your kazoo. Nothing changed there. The usual bully routine. McBride claims something has changed, in this ComputerWorld article by Todd R. Weiss, "SCO Forum 2005: CEO pledges to focus on innovation":
Even as detractors continue to label SCO as dead in the IT waters because of its two-year-old legal attacks on alleged Unix code infringement inside Linux, CEO and President Darl McBride pumped up his company's core resellers with the message that SCO will prevail.
"There's a lot of folks out there trying to say that SCO's claims are not even alive," McBride told a crowd of several hundred here in the convention center at the MGM Grand Hotel. "Until we get into the courtroom, you're going to continue to see the spread of FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] about SCO's legal case and our viability as a company." . . .
But with those legal fees now capped in a deal with its attorneys, SCO's financial picture is brightening, McBride said. "This is a sustainable model at this point," he said. . . .
"We do look forward to having our claims heard in that case."
There's a photograph of McBride, by the way, in the Todd Weiss article, and he looks like he's put on quite a bit of weight. I eat when I am stressed too.
Another interesting tidbit from that Infoworld article is that SCO hasn't yet done the deposition of IBM Chairman and CEO Sam Palmisano. And there is some very funny McBride baseball bluster talk in response to the Novell counterclaims, with McBride saying Novell is "swinging wildly." More like aiming darts at SCO's eyeballs.
Dan Kusnetsky is quoted in the article too, saying that customers rarely mention SCO any more. They are "slipping off the radar."
Eben Moglen was asked to comment, also, and he told Martens: They ruined a company that had a business and customers that cared. It was a vulgar and selfish thing that has no basis in law and no basis in fact. It's clear to everyone that the whole thing's a sham and a failure."
The last point I noticed is that, according to Darl, their engineers are supportive of their litigation. On page two of the Vnunet interview, McBride says this:When we pulled back from the war of words, it was hard and it still is hard some days. Even today some of our key engineers look at us and say: "That is ridiculous, false, why are we not fighting this?" Next time I hear that a SCO engineer is having a hard time looking for a job, I'll feel less compassion, then. As for SCO pulling back from a war of words, I beg to differ. What they did, from my perspective, is outsource most of it to journalists and other SCO-friendly passersby. Speaking of engineers, Sandy Gupta has been promoted again, according to a new 8K: On August 8, 2005, the Company promoted Sandeep Gupta to the position of chief technology officer. Mr. Gupta will receive an annual salary of $140,000. Mr. Gupta will continue to be eligible to participate in the Company's 2005 employee incentive bonus program for a maximum target bonus of up to 40% of his base salary, and he may receive an additional bonus for specific product deliverables in addition to the bonus he receives pursuant to the employee incentive bonus program.
The Company also intends to enter into, with Mr. Negris and Mr. Gupta, the Company's standard form of indemnification agreement for executive officers and directors, the form of which has previously been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2005, as Exhibit 10.36 to the Company's Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 on Form S-1. Heaven knows what he may say at trial, remembering his discredited declaration, but whatever he says, he's indemnified now.
As a pitiful coda, McBride, asked about SCO's customers' reactions to the litigation, said this: "Generally speaking, our customers are very loyal, some even wish us good luck . . ."
"Some" even wish them good luck. Only "some" of their own customers, folks. They need some luck. That is for sure, because now that the pendulum has swung, none of SCO's victims is likely to stop, now that it's SCO's turn to -- finally -- get theirs.
1Groklaw's ine left the following comment, and it's so funny, I wanted to add it here, so you don't miss it. He answers McBride's call to sit down, recognize the problem, and resolve it:
Dear Mr McBride.
We are sitting down.
We have recognised the problem.
It's you.
Signed: the other side.
PS: still awaiting evidence for your claims ... any evidence, with
"specificity" (ask your lawyer to explain that word to you).
PPS: Oh, and bring along the proof of ownership of Unix copyrights, while you
are at it.
PPPS: Novell sends their regards and asks if you could bring along any
outstanding Unix licence fees, in "full" (your lawyer can probably
explain that word to you as well).
Looking forward to the meeting so we can "come to a resolution much
quicker".
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
You know the drill. Use the preview button liberally, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
if any. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
Well said. Indeed very well said.
The are retreating to that dark corner where they hope they won't be noticed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:44 AM EDT |
I onder if Novell can pull their franchise from SCO for their non performance.
The FUD from that would really be interesting........
;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
I imagine if they replace their entire executive team, and the new
management
are active in investigating wrong doing and providing state
evidence for
possible criminal actions, and persue civil proceedings, against
the current
management and Bois, it could become possible to find some
form of settlement
with IBM, RedHat, and Novell, that would fall short of
materially harming SCO's
ability to actually continue in business.
Given such a change in
management, I suppose I could imagine such a
settlement confirming SCO does not
have Unix copyrights, perhaps even
"returning" Unixware back to Novell,
probably acknowledging the public
nature of Unix and perhaps even finally fully
"freeing" unix itself. Certainly
it would be used to settle any and all
potential issues over the free posix's
now and forever. Perhaps it would only
involve legal expenses incurred up to
that point. Perhaps, especially I think
depending on how dilligent the new
management would be in persuing the current
ones.
What form such a Darl and Yarro-free SCO might take is hard to say.
They
have already driven many of their best people away. Perhaps it would
become the "free unix" company?! Perhaps it would become another
miscellaneous "Microsoft Enterprise Partner". Who knows, nor do I care.
What
I do believe is that the conditions for any settlement/end of litigation
that
involves SCO continuing business in any form does not exist under their
present
management.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
McBride finally tells the truth:
"Some of our customers wish us good luck."
Preceeded by saying we will not be renewing our license for SCO OpenUnix nor our
ScoSuit I mean ScoSource license.
Followed by "Have a nice day." or "Have a nice life."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tuxi on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
ROFLOL
Question: What do you mean?
McBride: In terms
of the problems we have vis-à-vis Linux, if the other side would sit down and
recognise what these problems are instead of just gloss over them, we would come
to a resolution much quicker.
If the other side would
sit down? We're still waiting on specificity of any claims. And BTW what
claims of SCOX's are legitimate??
--- tuxi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
Isn't this just rich? lol
BTW:
Does SCO's current talk of making a go at their UNIX business means they'll be
ok to put the money they owe Novell into the trust Novell asked for? I mean, if
the Unix biz is doing so well, then complying and setting aside the money they
owe Novell should be easy, no?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kaemaril on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
"SCO's Unix business is profitable and the company is due to shed its
heavy financial burden from legal fees come January 2006."
Just out
of interest, but if Novell prevails what Unix business will they be left with?
Surely Novell will use SCO's naughtiness to pull out of every agreement they
possibly can, leaving SCO with ... um ... er ... well, what? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
It seems to me that SCO's only chance of resurrecting their Unix business would
be to spin it off as a separate corporation, leaving Caldera/SCO as a litigation
holding company.
At this point, I doubt even that would work, but it might
have a chance. --- 73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ine on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
Dear Mr McBride.
We are sitting down.
We have recognised the problem.
It's you.
Signed: the other side.
PS: still awaiting evidence for your claims ... any evidence, with
"specificity" (ask your lawyer to explain that word to you).
PPS: Oh, and bring along the proof of ownership of Unix copyrights, while you
are at it.
PPPS: Novell sends their regards and asks if you could bring along any
outstanding Unix licence fees, in "full" (your lawyer can probably
explain that word to you as well).
Looking forward to the meeting so we can "come to a resolution much
quicker".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
I've lots track of when SCO has to answer Novell's latest filing. Anyway, they
answer that, we get some discovery on the Sun and Microsoft contracts, the judge
rules that SCO has to give Novell all their assets (or the assets have to go in
a trust pending), SCO goes bankrupt, the creditors come to an amicable
agreement, the trustee goes along with it, the Unix business goes back to
Novell, criminal charges ensue ...
The long term could be measured in months. What have I missed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Might just be me, but I think hassling the guy about his
weight is a little unnecessary, even after the horrible
things they've said and done. No need to sink to their
level...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gibodean on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
I often wish people good luck.
For instance, at work today one of the other programmers wanted to try to do a
modification to some software that I knew wouldn't work. He said he was going
to do it anyway. I said "good luck".
My mate said he was going to ask his wife if he could go to a footy game instead
of going to her parent's place for lunch. I wished him "good luck".
Darl keeps using that phrase. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
PJ, this article reminds me how pathetic this whole situation is.
If these litigations keep on and on, SCO gets to throw mud at Linux, the GPL and
what not. And this will get much more coverage in the press than the victories
of IBM, Novell, Redhat and co. When that happens, in the (distant) future.
Now if Novell manage to put a stop to all this and put SCO out of business, as
may be the case, then it feels like we lose anyway. What will History remember
of all this ? Because you can be sure that in the Press, the Big Bad companies
will have pullied the poor small SME out-of-business. And mud will have stuck on
them and on Linux and the GPL.
What we need is for IBM to get their case moving fast so they can reach a
jugement on key issues. What we need is a judge who cuts the crap and makes
things go forward. Otherwise SCO as a puppet will have succeeded. Interests
behind SCO will have succeeded. And we will have been framed...
PJ (and others), many have mentioned that these trials might implicate
personally some key actors within SCO (McBride, some key shareholders, etc.). It
would be very interested to know how realistic this is, and what it would take
to have those people behind the scene have personal responsibility in these
cases. Any chance McBride would be forced into paying back part of his salary to
SCO to cover damages asked by IBM ? What about Canopy as a company ? The Canopy
executives ?
Regards,
Stephane
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
"There's a photograph of McBride, by the way, in the Todd Weiss article,
and he looks like he's put on quite a bit of weight. I eat when I am stressed
too."
Yikes!
He use to look like a cocky jerk, now he looks like a tired Gary Busey. It
could just be an unflattering picture, but the bags under his eyes are suspect.
But he has reason to look bad. Not many people get the chance to create such a
fantastic blunder during their lives. The whole fiaSCO, I'm sure, was quite an
experience to live thru, especially for those on the inside. It's an experience
I'm sure most people would care to live without, but Darl, Chris (we haven't
forgotten you), and company have achieved to create a life experience most of us
will never get to know or to personally understand like they are.
Congradulations, and here is my recommendation for the Darwin Award.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
"Until we get into the courtroom, you're going to continue to see the spread
of FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] about SCO's legal case and our viability as
a company."
I have to say this is priceless. Can you imagine the
FUD that a Linux user, or IBM, or Novell could spread about this
case?
"Watch out or we're going to show you just how much you don't owe
SCO!"
"Warning: Use SCO software and you will still be able to use Linux if
you want..."
"Install SCO software and you'll see just how much open
source software you can use with it!"
I know that Darl baby didn't mean
this but if you examine his statement carefully, you'll notice he didn't
identify who would be spreading the FUD...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
If so, SCO will still have ongoing legal costs at least for the Novell case and
perhaps for Autozone and Red Hat as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
When we pulled back from the war of words, it was hard and it still is hard
some days. Even today some of our key engineers look at us and say: "That is
ridiculous, false, why are we not fighting this?"
Remember, these
words are coming from Darl. It doesn't mean any SCO employee, key or otherwise,
actually said this. No doubt there are some who feel that SCO's claims are
valid, but I would wager you could count them on three fingers myself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
I used to be an SCO reseller. I qualified by taking a 50 question multiple
choice test on their web site. (To be fair, this was before Darl & Co.) As
a reward, I got free copies of OpenServer and UnixWare.
I did it because I had customers who ran OpenServer as a platform for
"vertical market" apps. One was a Hospice, another an auto parts
store. Open Server was a pain to work with, clunky and mostly outmoded.
Drivers for new hardware were hard to find, since most vendor's focus was
clearly on Windows. SCO's support, even back then, was minimal. I can't recall
ever getting fixes for any of the problems I opened with them. I just worked
around them. The marketing folks were very pleasant and helpful though.
I spoke to one of the application developers about the issues I was having with
OpenServer, and he was sympathetic. When I suggested Linux, he dismissed it. A
year or two later, I spoke to him again, and he told me he'd started looking at
moving his app to Linux.
All of my SCO customers have moved to either Linux or Windows now, and the SCO
boxes gather dust on my shelves. (I still have all of the license certificates
though, just in case anyone asks.) I suspect what will happen is that someone
will buy what's left of SCO after it's all over, and they and Novell will
release the UNIX core software under something like a BSD license. That will
end the matter once and for all, and everyone can get back to doing useful work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: algorythm on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
"The roots of SCO are tied into open source," McBride said. "My
position is very clear, we're not anti open source ..."
No,
they're not anti open source, they're just
" ... firm in our
belief that the unchecked spread of Open Source software, under the GPL, is a
much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S. corporations
realize."
Dear Congress: GPL threatens capitalism [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
"The important thing is that we support it, we stand behind and
we will take a call and deliver fixes where they are needed," Hughes said. "We
stand behind it as a complete offering, from the kernel, all the way up to the
app server and database server. Our open source strategy shouldn't be a surprise
to anybody." This is SCO playing both sides of the fence.
Linux vendors give away the software for free, but charge for support. SCO
tries to have it both ways, first by referencing the supported version with the
claims that Linux isn't free. Then they reference the free version when they
say Linux isn't supported. I always wonder who buys this sort of marketing to
the uninformed.--- ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Reven on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
SCO might be on the verge of getting what it deserves, but I find that even that
cheery thought just isn't enough. In my mind the real perpatrator isn't SCO as
a company, it's the people holding the reins. I think that Mr. Mcbride et al
have done should be thoroughly criminal. I would like to know if there is any
chance of criminal investigations resulting from this? What potential foci
could there be for such investigations?
It's doubtful that Mr. Mcbride left any helpful "I know we don't own these
copyrights, but can we make it look like we do" emails around. All I can
think of myself is that once SCO has no hush money left to pay to those
employees that know that some of them might come forth. If it can be shown that
Microsoft did indeed pay SCO to slander Linux, could that potentially lead to
criminal investigations?
Anyone know enough about criminal law to cheer me up?
---
Ex Turbo Modestum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
McBride insisted that within SCO, the vast majority of its employees are
focused on the company's technology, not its litigation. He estimates the
company employs under 200 staff ..... from the
Infoworld story
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
After the Davidson
email and the Novell counterclaims in tSCOg's Slander of title law suit
where are all the usual culprits hiding? Haven't heard much from the following
lately regarding tSCOg:
- Rob Enderle - who gave the 2004 SCO Forum
keynote address Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It
- Lauro DiDio -
tell me more about why idemnification is important again
please
- Daniel Lyons - Forbes expert on the crunchie crowd
- Ken
Brown - from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
claiming that Linus
didn't write Linux
Looks like the last true friend of tSCOg still around
is
Maureen O'Gara who makes a big deal over tSCOg hiring Tim Negris and
some secret project being worked on.
In a sick way I'm going to miss tSCOg
and its friends when this is over. Will we ever find out what
was in the
Blepp's briefcase? What about that missing MIT
spectral analysis deep dive? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Didio - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
All I can say is I hope Novell, IBM, and Redhat just eat them alive and spits
them out into the sewer to which Darl and company belong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
Wouldn't be suprized if darl would do the following.
1 Get bullied away by Sontag.
2 Start a company that makes a "revolutionary" OS nobody has ever seen
before.
3 become CEO of some movie/animation company.
4 return to SCO and discontinue half it's products.
5 introduce Open Unix pinnapple/Grapefruit flavor.
Oww no, been done before by a true visionairy.
Retep Vosnul
PS. (ot)
what about that nutzwerk vs FFII mess !
Any thoughts ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
"We’re just against someone taking our products and putting them into open
source [software] without our permission."
Didn't SCO say a while back
that the whole lawsuit was just a contract issue with IBM? Are they going back
to their original (false) claims about Linux and UNIX code?
Ive lost track of
it all, but is the IBM counterclaim to this (was it the 10th) still on the go? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: oneandoneis2 on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
"It's a little bit of a tennis match ... Novell's two strikes already on
the last two attempts, now they seem to be swinging
wildly."
That's where SCO is going to innovate next! They've
invented a new sport! I can see it now:
"We now return you to the
SCOtennis grand final. The score is 30-love, the bases are loaded, and. . .
STRIKE!!!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sports innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- Sports anologies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
From my understanding of the law, Gupta is still liable as the party being sued
for everything he does. He may be able to sue SCO or join SCO as a third party
to the proceedings, but if SCO goes out out business and can't indemnify Gupta,
Gupta is still in for a world of hurt!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ijramirez on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
Funny quote. So even some customers wish SCO good luck? Most people wish others
"good luck" when they are partying ways. I can picture IBM, Novell,
Red Hat, AZ and Chrysler telling SCO "Go ahead sue me .. good luck".
It sounds hillarious that he would say such a thing .. but oh well, it's Darl,
what can you expect? He has a history of quoting out of context. As one of my
history professors is college used to say used to say; "Context is
everything, it's all about context"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good luck? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:41 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
Darl McBride: "When you buy SCO Unix, you're ready to run. When you buy
Linux, get ready for high maintenance."
Excuse me?
1. When you buy Linux you get a pretty darn good support contract. Otherwise
you must support it yourself with the vast knowledge that has been posted in the
message boards.
2. I have dealt with a M$ VPN solution on ISA Server and a Linux VPN solution
running PopTop. Guess which one I had problems with and they both saw a fair
amount of use. As a matter of fact I only had one issue with POPTOP and that
was because of a PIX Configuration issue and not the Server. Other than that, I
basically only touched it to add/remove users. M$ I had to manually remove
sessions and reboot every once and a while. (this is similar to my experience
with IIS/Apache and SQL Server/MySQL servers as well). High maintenance
doesn't equal Linux but Windows.
I never used SCO Unix and am never going to when I know there is a cheaper and
better supported Linux solution out there.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Benanov on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
My company does trade shows. A lot of them are in Las Vegas.
Projected 300 in attendance is LAUGHABLE. When Darl can promise--and deliver
30,000...then I'll have respect.
But I doubt you can even find 3,000 customers who believe in SCO's litigation
program these days.
---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dan M on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
"The important thing is that we support it, we stand behind and we will
take a call and deliver fixes where they are needed," Hughes said. "We
stand behind it as a complete offering, from the kernel, all the way up to the
app server and database server. Our open source strategy shouldn't be a surprise
to anybody."
Does this not mean that they are required to offer the source modifications to
any GPL'ed app that they modify and distribute?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Tim Negris has worked for Sybase, Oracle, IBM, Blyth Software, OMNIS
Software,
Raining Data Corp, Equinom and ioLogics.
(actually Blyth became OMNIS and
then Raining Data)
ioLogics is an
interesting company
concidering the legal fights initiated by TSG. The company
has a product
called ioSentry which
"is
a transparent network software service that uses patent-pending
technology to
automate the protection and prosecution of patents, trade
secrets, business and
product plans, contracts and other confidential
information in the form of
documents, messages or web pages." You can read
more in a SYS-CON report by Maureen
O'Gara.
ioSentry is a "hardened Linux software appliance."
Raining Data Corp was formed by
the
merger of OMNIS and PICK. Raining Data has business partnerships with
both TSG
and Redhat.
Bloor Research Ltd. calls Negris an "IT guru".
Equinom
(which should be at www.equinom.com but isn't) seems to have been
some kind of
start up trying to develop the "Peer Services Data Model",
creating closed
source peer to peer software.
Maureen O'Gara claims in an article that
"Tim
Negris, the guy who coined the phrase "thin client" when he was a VP
at
Oracle."
Negris seems to have worked with the best, so why on earth is he
working for the worst?
(It cannot possibly be a coincidence that O'Gara
seems to have written about Negris in the past and Google finds three recent
articles by her about the new job at TSG.)
--- I'm not a Windows user,
consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Methinks he is referring to Groklaw... ;-)
---
The Observer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
"Next time I hear that a SCO engineer is having a hard time looking for a
job, I'll feel less compassion, then" PJ
If the standard is whether Darl the Snarl tells the truth, then Darl the Snarl's
word is not worth the paper it is printed on. I suggest that we not rely
exclusively on the word of a proven liar like Darl the Snarl and show compassion
to those lower level SCOG engineers who are looking for another job - until the
facts show otherwise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ilssear on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
McBride shows, once again, his misunderstanding of human nature and volunteer
activity with his unsupportable remarks about "volunteer firemen." Please take
note of the chilean firemen
department (completely dependant on volunteers) or this unit in the Czech Republic (in
Czech, but shows how even in countries with professional firemen you can still
have all-volunteer units.)
Moreover, even in the US, the first all
volunteer firehouse was founded by Ben Franklin in Philly in 1736, and there
were no professional firemen paid full-time until 1850. Nowadays, professionals
and volunteers work side by side, and there is even an organization for
volunteer firemen, the NVFC
For more facts on
volunteer firefighters and how they are , in reality, the backbone and largest
group of firefighters worldwide, please visit
wikipedia's "firefighter" article (especially the information on specific
countries and their mix of volunteers vs. full-time paid firemen.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Actually PJ, you're not the only one with memories like that. I used fists and
feet instead of litigation, however,
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
"...When we pulled back from the war of words, it was hard and it still is
hard some days. Even today some of our key engineers look at us and say:
"That is ridiculous, false, why are we not fighting this?..."
What engineers? I've been told that most of SCO's best and brightest engineers
left for greener pastures some time ago. They used to have a number of Phds on
their engineering staff in years past, now I'm told there are only a very few
left, if indeed, there are any at all. There are Internet sites dedicated to
ex-SCO employees where they console each other and try to provide whatever
assistance they can those in the greatest need.
These ex-SCO employees are NOT delighted with the direction their ex-employer
has taken. I have heard a couple of the ones I know refer to themselves as the
most 'hated' or most 'despised' engineers in the country. They are not grateful
for being unemployed and do not now and have never agreed with what SCO
management has chosen to do in court. They have never believed that there was
any significant SCO code in Linux, if there was even any SCO code at all in
Linux or any other FOSS package for that matter.
SCO has only a skeleton sized engineering staff left to field support calls that
require a look at their kernel sources or other software components. It is
barely enough to handle their support needs, much less enough to develop a new,
innovatively engineered operating system. In fact, it has been nearly a decade
since the release of OpenServer 5. It took SCO over nine (9) years to develop
and release OpenServer 6, while new versions of Linux have sometimes appeared in
less than a year, much less a decade.
SCO is history. Period. Soon, their name will be remembered only on the Wayback
Machine and in obscure footnotes in one of Dr. Salus's brilliant books on
computer industry and networking history.
Just my $0.02...
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
I was wondering if the Legal Cap applied to all cases or only to the IBM case.
It
would appear that with the Novel response that the Legal expenses with the
Novell case will be getting a lot higher what with discovery, motions etc. If
the
Cap applies to both does this mean that SCO's legal representation in both cases
will deteriote. I do not believe these lawers will do much if the Cap is
exceeded.
Maybe PJ can do an article about possible ramifications etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
I believe that the people we are competing against – even though
they put out press releases to the contrary -- know that we have
intellectual property problems. [My bold]
Darn right Darl
& company has IP problems--they don't own the copyrights they're claiming
open source is infringing, have no proof of ownership, and no proof of any
infringement.
Yes, I'd say SCOG does have IP problems, and it's
their problem, not anybody else's.
Just my
opinion.--- What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the
bigger it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Actually ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
Anybody know how SCO is accounting for non-payment of amounts due Novell? Does
listing liabilities to Novell as revenue overstate the profits just a bit? Is
this called "cooking the book?"
Inquiring minds want to know[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Profits? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
Mmmmmmm, bully roast!
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
I am actually amazed that Darl is perceptive enough to begin to realize that
the jig is up and that it is his turn to sweat a little "bully flop
sweat".
This whole drama is of the same basic stuff as the political
scene these days. The world could use a lot of "bully flop sweat" from some of
its many bullies.
--- All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jto on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
In the interview with Darl on vnunet he is quoted as
saying:
There is a story in the Wall Street Journal today in
which the CIO of Tommy Hillfiger said: "We are bailing out on Linux because of
predictability problems and a lack of reliability." So they are going back to
Windows. Those kinds of deals should be going to Unix on
Intel.
In fact that is not (suprise) what the WSJ article said.
The WSJ said (in relation to Tommy Hilfiger (sp):
"In a way,
Linux is now perhaps turning the corner," says Eric Singleton, chief information
officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp. His company had been running its Web
shopping site, Tommy.com, on Linux -- but recently switched it to Microsoft
software. He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final
tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a
multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."... Sharing code with software
developers working with Tommy Hilfiger played a role in the company's decision
to shift its Web store to Windows. "They are a lot more liberal -- quietly
liberal -- in releasing chunks of their code to the developer community," says
Mr. Singleton of Tommy Hilfiger, who said he has greater confidence in a single
vendor in controlling the evolution of its products. "They jumped through a lot
of hoops to help us out."
I think that he is referring in code
sharing to the application software (they were using a web commerce product
running on Linux and moved to Microsoft's commerce product, as he can't be
referring to Linux itself!
tommy.com was on Solaris until February 2005 when
they switched to Linux (according to Netcraft), so they are not going "back to
Windows" and I expect this had more to do with a deal MS offered for their
commerce product than with any real issues related to
Linux! --- Regards, JTO [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
If they think their fees are capped, in the case of a loss, so they have no
worries then they are not counting the bill they are going to receive from other
quarters.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Define capped? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:32 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BrianW on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
A shipwreck has left you stranded on a desert island with one other person.
Your first priority is to:
a) Build a shelter.
b) Build a fire.
c) Find water.
d) Draw up a contract that gives you exclusive rights to the book deal if anyone
ever wants to buy the story of your shipwreck.
You win an Oscar for best actor. In your acceptance speech, you thank:
a) Your mother.
b) Your wife.
c) Your fellow castmembers.
d) Your lawyer.
You see an audience crying at the end of a touching movie. You marvel at:
a) The complexity of the human spirit.
b) The capacity of human empathy.
c) The poignancy of a compelling story.
d) Why nobody has every thought of “monetizing” tears.
You read an article about a doctor using embedded Linux in artificial limbs for
indigent patients. You think:
a) How wonderful it is that the GPL makes such benefits affordable.
b) That the possibilities are endless for benevolent applications of open
source.
c) That you should perhaps contribute in some way to this wonderful technology.
d) That this is a niche market without deep pockets, and therefore not worth
taking to court.
You’re caught trying to hijack an entire industry for your own personal gain.
You:
a) Come clean and admit your mistake.
b) Apologize.
c) Make restitution to those who have been harmed by your actions.
d) Or not.
---
//Brian
#define IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
If like me, you grew up as a fan of those 3-minute cartoons from Warner Bros,
you will have fond memories of watching Road Runner triumph over the endless
attempts of Wile E. Coyote to snag him for supper.
Reading this piece and the various links included reminded me powerfully of
those cartoons. In particular I found myself visualising the various moments
when Coyote runs past the edge of a cliff, to find himself pedalling furiously
in mid air. We watched, chortling, as first he remained ignorant of the error,
then furiously tried to run back to safety of the clifftop. Next came that
moment of awful realisation when he looked at the camera, swallowed hard, before
finally hurtling downwards and out of sight.
I think Darl has about reached the point of realisation at long last, finally
admitting to himself that this partucular ruse is over.
What we'll see following in the next few weeks and months, is going to be
interesting. Darl's options pose him some tough decisions. Firstly, he's got the
threat of counter-suits to deal with. I love the fact that although he's got to
the point of realising that he might actually *lose* his attempt to litigate a
payout from IBM, he doesn't yet seem to grasp the fact that when IBM, Novell et
al line up for damages, his business model with it's "long term
sustainability" is going to remain about the same length of time that
Coyote used to levitate. Not long.
But then we have a new problem - one that I'm not sufficiently aware of US law
to comment on. Assuming that SCO still has any customers left after the
conclusion of all outstanding legal actions, what are the chances of shareholder
lawsuits - and I note this indemnification tactic, but figure a good lawyer can
work around that - to go after individual directors and officers of the
company.
It's going to be interesting...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
... because we're outta business without more of them.
Seriously, if you exchange the words sales and innovation in the press releases,
it makes more sense. I hear this sales speak all the time in the engineering
job I'm in, and it's always funny seeing through the sales blurbs.
A way of looking at this is that where ever the CEO/CFO types of SCO go, at
least ya know to keep your 401k away from it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tanstaafl on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
... when U say "[n]ext time I hear that a SCO engineer is having a hard
time looking for a job, I'll feel less compassion," but keep in mind where
that comment is coming from. Our Buddy Darl has stretched the truth mightily
about most things, so I wouldn't be too sure he wasn't doing the same thing when
he says SCO engineers are pleading with him to "strike back." Bullies
like to spread the pain around, so long as they don't have to deal with any
("Gosh, folks, I'm only doing it at the request of my staff!").[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
"he looks like he's put on quite a bit of weight"
I know how they attacked PJ personally, and I understand she has strong feelings
against these people. But mentioning Darl's weight was just as wrong as Maureen
O'Gara's article about PJ. It's personal.
Let's keep the discussion on the issues, not on people's appearance, please.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
"tSCOg's actions nailed the lid on the coffin of vanilla UNIX"
- To me this is a pity as they have done irrepairable harm to a product that
helped changed computing
- They have diminished the work of some great people by tarnishing the name and
word UNIX
- tSCOg have helped put IBM's Linux strategy on the plate of many IT execs
- tSCOg showed what happens when avarice & greed infect an otherwise good IT
vendor
- tSCOg indirectly helped formulate a new way of explaining complicated legal
matters to the layman as well as a new approach to researching & publicising
legal related material
Doug Marker
(perhaps good stuff can come out of muck)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 14 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
Quoting Daryl from the Todd Weiss article:
"... We
want to grow. We want to
turn into a growth
company."
Well, my, my. Doesn't everyone?
So
far, though, Daryl has confused growth with malignancy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|