decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 09:17 AM EST

In SCO's recently filed 10K, the one where SCO admitted its litigation might never reach a jury, it sang a sad song, about losing business because of Linux:
Sales of our UNIX-based products and services have been declining over the last several years. This decline in revenue has been primarily attributable to significant competition from alternative operating systems, particularly Linux.

We anticipate that our OpenServer and UnixWare products will continue to provide a future revenue stream for our UNIX business. However, unless there is a change in the current operating system environment, we expect revenue from these products will continue to decline.

It chanted the same dirge at the conference call. Dan Goodin at The Register carefully checked the transcript, and reported he couldn't find "a single sentence that addressed the claim that SCO's own missteps made bankruptcy imminent."

I think that will come up at trial, SCO's misteps, if there ever is one, though. Here's why. There's an article in Information Week today about a new report that finds that Unix is booming, not dying.

Here's what the report found:

A new study from the Gabriel Consulting Group shows that use of Unix, particularly in high-end systems, is on the rise in the enterprise, according to Dan Olds, a principal analyst with the research and analysis firm. More than half of the data center managers surveyed reported that they will be increasing their use of high-end Unix systems, with only 30% saying that's not in their plans.

"These results tell us that the Unix market is healthy and likely to grow in the future," said Olds in his report.

But, I hear you (SCO) say, that's only high end, and SCO's business was low end. Look at this, from later in the article:

When it comes to small Unix servers, the numbers aren't so clear, said Olds. Overall, he pointed out, the survey shows that low-end Unix is holding steady.

The big increases seem to be coming from the high end.

Why isn't SCO Unix at least holding steady, then, with the rest of them? If SCO is losing business, when no one else is, is competition from Linux really to blame? I won't dignify the claim that it's Unix code inside Linux that has caused SCO's troubles, but it's in the 10K:

In reviewing our intellectual property rights during the year ended October 31, 2003, we became aware that parts of, or modifications made or relating to, our UNIX source code and derivative works have been included in the Linux operating system without our authorization or appropriate copyright attribution....

We believe that the inclusion of our UNIX code and derivative works in Linux has been a contributor to the decline in our UNIX business revenue because users of Linux generally do not pay for the operating system itself, but for services and maintenance.

I guess we can discount that theory, and in so many ways. But if the claim isn't true, then there are no damages, and this is all an exercise in silliness or anticompetitive use of litigation. Maybe someone needs to tell SCO the real problem is it has bad breath.

Incidentally, in Comes v. Microsoft, the antitrust litigation going on currently in Iowa, Microsoft's attorney (one of them), Steven L. Holley, said something of interest about litigation and big business which you can read for yourself in the January 25th transcript, [Update: which was originally at http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/1.25.07_transcript.txt, before the site was removed on settlement of the litigation]. Microsoft had asked a question last Friday of the witness now on the stand, who is an ex-Novell guy, and the plaintiffs' lawyer objected, so this snip comes from the part where Microsoft is trying to justify the question, to try to avoid the judge giving an instruction to the jury about it:

Holley: So it is not a fair inference that because the government investigated Microsoft that Microsoft had done something wrong. As the Iowa Supreme Court has said in State against Monroe, when lawyers make tactical choices that create inferences that help their clients, they open the door to rebuttal by their adversary.

So if Plaintiffs make a choice to suggest through the testimony not only of Mr. Bradford, but also of Mr. Alepin, that Microsoft has been subjected to numerous government investigations and private lawsuits -- and the Court will recall that Mr. Lamb took Mr. Alepin through numerous lawsuits that have been filed against Microsoft in the course of talking about Mr. Alepin's credentials.

So the jury has heard all about Sun suing Microsoft and RealNetworks suing Microsoft.

And the clear implication of this is that where there's that much smoke, there must be fire.

And that -- if that suggestion has been created in the minds of the jurors, it's perfectly appropriate for Microsoft to counter that door opening by noting that other companies that are successful in the marketplace and acquire large market positions are sued by their competitors.

It is a routine practice in American business, there is an entire field of study about the strategic use of antitrust litigation against competitors, so it's our position, Your Honor, that there was nothing improper about the question and therefore no need for an instruction.

So, I gather we not only must swallow the concept that malware hits Microsoft products more than others because Microsoft is popular, not because it has security issues, but we are also to believe that it is also sued not because it misbehaves, but because it's a success. That is all found on page 10406. If you keep reading, you'll see Microsoft trying to show that it was Novell's misteps that caused its troubles with DrDOS, by the way, if you'd like to see a brief example of what I am predicting will be an issue in SCO v. IBM

I don't know about you, but I find that statement about litigation being routinely used for anticompetitive purposes a bit shocking. I don't know if it's true that all companies misuse the court system that way, but the statement certainly implies that Microsoft does so. If not, why would it claim it's routine? That raises thoughts about the money that ended up going to SCO, doesn't it?

I can't help but wonder what SCO's "experts" told the court about Unix, if what they wrote matches this new Gabriel report. Hardly likely. So, I think we can safely rely on it that we will see these kinds of reports coming up, and SCO witnesses being asked if anything SCO did contributed in any way to the decline of its business.

Here's an idea to run up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes: Suing your own customers rarely builds a business. I think one could argue that it drives customers away in droves. Do you think that could be SCO's problem? And speaking of Linux, how foolish was SCO to stop distributing, just as Linux was really taking off?

Incidentally, IBM tops all Unix vendors in a recent preference survey. I'm just guessing, but I can't help but think that its dignified behavior during the SCO attack has to have something to do with that. There seems to be something to the expression that you reap what you sow.


  


If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO? | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:23 AM EST
to be easy to find

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:26 AM EST
Remember to make links clickable <a
href="http://www.example.com/">Like this</a> and changing the
post mode to "HTML Formatted".

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:29 AM EST
ever since the MS-Novell Deal, i can't get the idea out of mine mind, that it is
intentional that SCO will lose from lack of money instead of an conviction that
clears linux leagally.

after that, with novel the undisputed owner of unix, novell can try again where
SCO left of.

the scorched earth policy from the SCO trail will make it much less likely that
somebody will fight back.

cu ;-)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Shocked?
Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:34 AM EST
I don't know about you, but I find that statement about litigation being routinely used for anticompetitive purposes a bit shocking.

Shocking? Surely not. At least in the computer hardware, software, and services industries, lawsuits carried out for strategic business purposes (rather than to correct any arguable loss due to a tort) abound. From Apple's "Look-And-Feel" lawsuit industry, to Lexmark suing under the DMCA to keep companies from selling compatible cartridges, it feels as if such lawsuits are the norm, at least among cases that receive media attention.

If there's anything new and noteworthy here, it's the claim that specifically antitrust suits are a burgeoning field of strategic nuisance lawsuits. I'd like to know whether that's even arguably true, or whether it's just Microsoft --- which may in fact be setting some kind of record as a target for antitrust lawsuits --- pushing the view that no such suit has intrinsic merit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

*Salutes*
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM EST
Here's an idea to run up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes: Suing your own customers rarely builds a business. I think one could argue that it drives customers away in droves. Do you think that could be SCO's problem? And speaking of Linux, how foolish was SCO to stop distributing, just as Linux was really taking off? Eh, we have seen and known this from the beginning and the honest truth of the matter is that I am really not convinced that SCO will ever grasp the concept. If SCO was a person they would have all kinds of psych labels attached depting the nature with which they seem to never acknowledge that anything is a result of something that THEY have done. Its always someone else's fault.

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • *Salutes* - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:53 AM EST
  • No salute - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 12:38 PM EST
  • *Salutes* - Authored by: ine on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 06:03 PM EST
There's UNIX, and there's UNIX
Authored by: Observer on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 10:51 AM EST
I didn't get all the way through the report, but remember where SCO's market share is. Unix is still the operating system of choice on Heavy Metal systems, the ones with several thousand dollar price tags, coming out of places like Sun and IBM. Systems that are smaller than "mainframes" (which, by the way, are still not dead yet), but bigger than your typical single or dual Intel server. SCO was shooting for the little guys, the small office systems, or at least UNIX on commodity hardware. I'd be willing to bet that, if you count out the BSD variants, there isn't much of a market for UNIX left on this class of hardware. Microsoft was actually the first one to pretty much eat up that market to begin with, and now Linux is caming to snatch it back again.

---
The Observer

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: AlphaGeek on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:17 AM EST
One problem with SCO (at least from my experience with the product long before
the Linux litigation), was the SCO wanted to charge a minicomputer price for its
version of UNIX when the market was dominated by DOS/Windows pricing. For
example, (these prices are from an increasing porous memory) when Windows 95 was
selling for $200 for a fresh release for a newly built PC, SCO was selling for
$600-$1,000, not including the customary set of development tools that most UNIX
systems shipped. You would pay $1,500 to $2,500 more for the development
tools.

I think that SCO still expects to charge the same inflated prices for UNIX
software on PCs that they used to charge ten years ago (and still see being
charged by the big horses - IBM, HP and Sun), when the price points have been
fundamentally altered by Linux. Linux completely demolished their pretentions
to grandeur. Now, better technology (Linux) costs substantially less to own
than SCO's drek. (With Linux you basically own and control the software on your
machine, SCO still only sells you a license to use UnixWare.) Support at the
time was problematic at best, and I doubt that things have improved with the
current tribulations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More systems is not more business
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM EST

More than half of the data center managers surveyed reported that they will be increasing their use of high-end Unix systems

But the price of these systems is dropping. And they are getting more powerful. So "more use" does not necessarily mean more revenue for the vendors like Sun.

IMHO Sun is in trouble if its business continues to depend on shipping Sparc systems. They will not be able to compete with commodity hardware based on 64-bit AMD processors running Linux.

And if they think Solaris (their version of Unix) will save them, they are dreaming. I have to use Solaris at work. Most of the utilities are inferior to their GNU equivalents. There is a strong case for scrapping most of the command-line tools on Solaris and replacing them with GNU tools - resulting in a kind of "GNU/Solaris", indistinguishable (to most users) from GNU/Linux. (The kernel is really the part of the system that is least visible to the user.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aren't SEC reports supposed to be factual?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:32 AM EST
The statements addressed in this article sound more like marketing hype than
facts. Clearly the intent is to mislead investors. Is there no point where
some authority, SEC or FTC steps up and says "Justify that
statement."?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: clark_kent on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:37 AM EST
Very good post. I think Linux and open Source software helped resurrect Unix
from the path of extinction that Microsoft had forced it to travel. Also, let's
congratulate Apple for placing Unix technology (BSD) in Mac OS X.

Also I think SCO is losing because it doesn't have an equal partner. It is out
on it's own. And I am sure Sun, Microsoft, and anybody else who pays licenses to
SCO won't mind it going away. I consider SCO to be an annoyance anyway.

Darryl, you had better take advantage that MCDonalds franchise offer. Then you
can run your franchise on outdated SCO technology. You would be better off
flippin burgers than technology for a living.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Counting *nix at the low end will not work
Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:38 AM EST
Trying to count low-end *nix boxes is a fools' errand. It cannot be done in the normal way, because you cannot just count paid licenses, and multiply by some factor to account for those who cheat on their paid licenses. Today there is a lot of choice at the bottom end of the market, and much of that choice comes from BSD and GNU/Linux variants, which because most do not involve a paid license per system.

I have run several servers available on-line, which have been running OpenBSD on Sun hardware. They will remain forever uncounted, because there is really no good way to tell of an on-line system is running OpenBSD. There is no per-system, per-client, or per-CPU license to count. It most certainly is a *nix variant, is robust, and runs on more platform types that most people would guess.

So the crux of the question is not whether *nix is successful at the bottom end (it most certainly is) but rather whether it is commercially successful from a software vendors' perspective. With several flavors of BSD and many flavors of GNU/Linux available as free software, *nix can be completely dominant, but yet not be significant as commercial software.

(Yes I am still quite alive! My cancer blog is here.)

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: philc on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 12:20 PM EST
Here's an idea to run up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes: Suing your own
customers rarely builds a business. I think one could argue that it drives
customers away in droves. Do you think that could be SCO's problem? And speaking
of Linux, how foolish was SCO to stop distributing, just as Linux was really
taking off?


Well, not really. Microsoft has been suing its customers for years by funding
the BSA. They continually get away with it. Suing your customers is a priviledge
that comes with monopoly.

If SCO is listening to Microsoft they could think the same.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Low end Unix is growing
Authored by: philc on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 12:29 PM EST
When it comes to small Unix servers, the numbers aren't so clear, said Olds.
Overall, he pointed out, the survey shows that low-end Unix is holding steady.


Actually, there is modest gain at the low end. Remember, SCO is losing business.
For activity to appear flat that means others are gaining business (growing).

If SCO is losing to Linux, as they claim, it means low-end Unix is growing.

I don't know why it would surprise anyone that Unix remains strong. Unix has a
proven track record and it is taylored to (delivered with) the systems that it
runs on. High end Unix vendors target the segment with exactly what the
customers need and want in both software and hardware.

[ Reply to This | # ]

people like good corporate citizens
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:43 PM EST
Everything else being equal, people prefer to do business with good citizens.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:47 PM EST
SCO's lawsuits only accelerated their inevitable downward spiral. As a Linux
distro they never got the critical mass to be a SUSE or RedHat. SCO Unix was
dead as a doornail anyway.

The only non-free Unix OS's (using the term Unix loosely) that is flourishing is
OSX. HPUX, IRIX and AUX are on the downward spirals (or in the case of IRIX
mostly dead).

Solaris, Linux and BSD are all free. Given the choice of any of those
three...even when Solaris wasn't free...and SCO there's no contest.

Suing IBM is kinda of the expected play...sometimes, like for TiVO it works out
well. Most times I think not so much.

Vinea

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, Novell did kill DR-DOS
Authored by: lm on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:58 PM EST
When Novell released Novell DOS 7 (the first Novell release), the sound drivers
in iD Software's DOOM wouldn't work with it. This made Novell's DOS highly
irrelevant in the hobbyist market which, by that time, was the only market
left.

Now one can argue that the war had already been lost by that time, that Novell
had essentially purchased a product living on borrowed time when it bought
Digital Research. And there is some truth to that argument. But it is also clear
that by the time Novell did buy Digital Research that DR DOS no longer had the
commanding technological lead that it did in earlier incarnations and that
Novell did a very poor job of continued development and QC testing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:02 PM EST
One reason for the upsurge in high end systems, at least from my environments
perspective - which is large, with 30k - 40k+ servers, is the maturing of
virtualization technologies.

With DLPAR's in AIX, and Zones in Solaris, it becomes more cost effective to
deploy a single high-end server that can be carved into smaller bits as
required.

-roman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Business Principles
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:08 PM EST
Failing to serve your customers interests and destroying your reputation through
unethical behaviour is a sure way to ruin a business. SCO go even further by
actively taking action against their customers - a more obviously fatal strategy
it would be hard to devise.

Once a reputation is damaged, it is extremely difficult to restore. Even if SCO
were to survive in some form, it's hard to imagine who would want to do business
with them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

but *nix IS dying ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:22 PM EST
Beg your pardon, but i think this article misrepresents things a bit.

Of course SCO management did some serious mistakes, but they where doomed anyway
with the rise of Open Source Software. And it wasn't completely their fault. SCO
did differ fundamental from other "UNIX" companies in that they never
produced/sold hardware.

Here in the basement stands a SUN Ultra Enterprise 10000, it takes about 4 to 6
healthy men to lift that beast, and its equiped with 46 CPUs, Ultra Sparc 2 type
(64 bit), about 50GB RAM, a bunch of harddrive controllers, about 20 power
supply units, network cards, et cetera. Virtually everything on that baby is
redundant, its a rock solid hardware. And thats where Sun Microsystems made its
money, they where never in the business selling operatings systems, they where
selling complete packages: hardware the admin dreams of at night plus a solid
operating system tailored for the hardware (at least they sold it that way) plus
excellent support (for big customers). Highend market. Banks, big companies. And
so did IBM, Hewlett Packard, and so did SGI and all the others. Of course it was
not everything high end servers, so for instance SGI made a good deal selling
medium and high end graphic workstations. But Irix was never more than a tools
to help SGI their hardware and support, same as AIX was for IBM or HP-UX for HP
.. well, you name them.

Today SGI is gone, because their technological lead in graphics hardware is
gone, SUN has to fight to survive because their big Servers can be replaced
today with a cluster of cheap PC hardware, and their technical advantage isn't
that big either anymore because processor evolution is SO much faster in the
"intel compatible" world, the only one left that looks healthy is IBM,
and thats not because their AIX is superior, but they figured soon enough how
things are going and shifted their business from selling hardware packages to
selling services ..

And if SCO handn't found a sponsor that funds their silly claims they would be
drop dead by now as well, actually "old" SCO figured that a while ago
when it sold its business to Caldera, but what should i tell a groklaw reader
..

But the sun wouldn't shine bright for SCO today even with a much much better
management, maybe they would have a nice little niche found to go on, but their
core market (selling a technicaly obsolete UNIX clone for cheap PC hardware) is
gone forever.

PS: bear with my english, its not my native tongue

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:36 PM EST

"Why isn't SCO Unix at least holding steady, then, with the rest of them? If SCO is losing business, when no one else is, is competition from Linux really to blame? I won't dignify the claim that it's Unix code inside Linux that has caused SCO's troubles, but it's in the 10K:"

Hmm, maybe because they've threatened everyone and sued their own customers over using Linux? Possibly might that make business think twice about even talking to SCO much less using their products?

Lets not forget they've cut staff, stopped most product development of OpenServer, are providing shoddy support, may have to stop shipping Linux and the LKP in SCO Unix if IBM wins its SJ motions, the list goes on.

I think probably, just maybe, that most of the business world views SCO as the Cancer of IT, whom are willing to do and say anything to make a buck, and therefore cannot be trusted with critical enterprise applications. Perhaps their own current customers already see themselves as litigation targets and are leaving anyway. Or just maybe, everyone thinks SCO will be squashed like a bug on the sidewalk by IBM and Novell so companies had better find an alternative to SCO UNIX asap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:49 PM EST

It is a routine practice in American business, there is an entire field of study about the strategic use of antitrust litigation against competitors, so it's our position, Your Honor, that there was nothing improper about the question and therefore no need for an instruction.


To which PJ remarked:

I don't know about you, but I find that statement about litigation being routinely used for anticompetitive purposes a bit shocking. I don't know if it's true that all companies misuse the court system that way, but the statement certainly implies that Microsoft does so.


At the risk of being seen as the devil's advocate here -- I don't see anything in that statement that implies that M$ itself misuses the system that way.
And I find the whole argument (only part of which I quote here) made by the M$ attorney makes sense.

Before you misunderstand me:

Ceteramque senseo Microsoft esse delendam.


bj


[ Reply to This | # ]

What? SCO was low end?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 03:05 PM EST
NO, NO, NO, NO!

According to the lawsuit, SCO unix is NOT the low end. That is why Linux had to
steal all the IP from SCO! Now with SCO's technology Linux can run on
Mainframes! (in case your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, don't flame me.)

See, by SCO's own account, they should be in the market segment that is
growing... they were THE robust Unix, they were High End. Heck, they ARE Unix,
everyone else is just a derivative.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO should be raking it in!
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 03:06 PM EST
[sarcasm]
After all, they are the owners of the UNIX Operating System. They should be getting sublicensing fees for all the new UNIX servers, right? With all of the expanded use of the operating system that they own and control, they should be making record profits.
[/sarcasm]

That claim is irreconcilable with the financial reality.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Unix Business is Booming!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 03:49 PM EST
Apple's OS X is based on BSD Unix.

It's sales are booming.

Mac OS X grew last year to about 5-6% of the desktop and portable computer
market.

OS X will be the underyling OS for new iPods and iPhones. Cell phones
completely outnumber other markets in number of sales each year.

It's Unix everywhere. Big boxes, small boxes, and handheld boxes.

Just not in SCO's boxes.

SCO completely mismanaged.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is dying, why isn't Unix
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM EST


May have been a better title. We've installed two Unix servers at work (BSD) in
what was once a 100% Microsloth shop, and we know of many other companies who
are doing the same thing. We have a copy of Solaris 10 gratis courtesy of Sun,
but haven't had a chance to try it yet.

And of course there's all the Mac and Ipod sales by Apple - we know that the Mac
runs a BSD variant, and it's rumored that the Ipod does too.

IBM, Sun, and a lot of other companies are selling a lot of Unix boxes. If TSCOG
couldn't manage to sell Unix when everyone else could, they were (and are) doing
something wrong.



---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 09:13 PM EST
The current version of UnixWare is ancient; I can't even believe they try to
sell
this stuff. The windowing system is X11R5, not even R6. Their dev tools are
based on things like gcc 2.95. Their drivers for most common chipset sets like
intel is nearly zero, they have few graphics drivers and their NIC support was
current in 1995. Maybe if SCO updated their OS instead of suing they wouldn't
be in this bind. From a purely technical standpoint, UnixWare is way, way behind

other Unixes, even Irix.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shocking?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 09:24 PM EST
I don't know about you, but I find that statement about litigation being routinely used for anticompetitive purposes a bit shocking.
Excuse me? Let's face it, litigation is used by law firms and individual lawyers as a source of income. Describing such abuse is what http://overlawyered.com/ et al. do on an all too routine basis.

--
dnl

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anybody remeber SCOX?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 04:40 AM EST
That's SCO stock ticker when they were in the process of being delisted.
Yesterday their stock bounced betwwen 0.98 and 1.02. If they go below $1 for 30
days, they will get the old SCOX ticker back.
Dennis

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Unix isn't dying, why is SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 11:03 AM EST
In reference to case in Iowa against Microsoft, I am surprised that the attorney
for plaintiff did not ask Judge to correct Microsoft attorney's statement that
(companies) institute anti-trust against competitors. It is my clear
understanding that only government can conduct anti-trust cases. Can anyone
clarify that point.

W. Anderson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )