Professional Web Applications Themes

Wish - SCO

As I've written before, people still posting on this list (I've mentioned names in a previous posting) helped me to learn Unix. When I needed it. Yes, Boyd Linn was amongst them. Bela was my (and many others') SCO god, and the others were up with him. You're all of you still my tops, Bills, Tonys, Boyds, Belas, JPRs, Jeffs, Johns - all of you.. I'd like to see this list go parallel. Let's face it, there's nothing left of SCO but an organization out to make a fast buck on the market, with a Microsoft-founded backer. There is not, ...

  1. #1

    Default Wish

    As I've written before, people still posting on this list (I've
    mentioned names in a previous posting) helped me to learn Unix. When I
    needed it. Yes, Boyd Linn was amongst them. Bela was my (and many
    others') SCO god, and the others were up with him. You're all of you
    still my tops, Bills, Tonys, Boyds, Belas, JPRs, Jeffs, Johns - all of you..

    I'd like to see this list go parallel. Let's face it, there's nothing
    left of SCO but an organization out to make a fast buck on the market,
    with a Microsoft-founded backer. There is not, and will not be, any
    software worth speaking of emanating from SCO in the future. The present
    Open Server is dead as a doornail and there is no future for UnixWare.
    All that UnixWare does, Linux 2.4 can do and 2.6 will do better.

    I'd like to see people with hardware driver, daemon, utility etc.
    problems being given help converting to other OSs ("you could do it like
    this with ..."). Obviously Linux is a contender, but the different BSD
    flavors are up there too. As is HP-UX, True64, MACOSX and AIX. Solaris
    will soon be no more, and alas for us all, Sun with it.

    I use any sort of Unix for what I can do with it. My main needs are
    utilities: terminal server, LDAP, MTAs/MDAs, DNS, web servers and that
    sort of thing. I am and will stay a sysadmin.

    I came to SCO after Novell's UnixWare 1.0, which I installed and broke a
    thousand times after many evenings' installs from QIC 150MB tapes.
    OpenServer 5.0.0 came on a CD, much easier. SCO and the Michels were my
    idols and I became sysadmin for the main SCO distributor in Holland.
    Many of my colleagues were SCO instructors, master ACEs and taught me
    masses, as did all of /you/. I *hate* to see things going the way they
    are, but that's the way of the world. Now I'd like to see you all
    helping others out of the mess that SCO has got them into.

    For those who ask: "will SCO look after the resellers?" the answer is
    "no". There is no SCO any more, as we knew it. Just a con outfit, out to
    make a killing before it gets swallowed up.

    --Tonni


    --
    Tony Earnshaw

    Once the camel's head has entered your tent,
    it's very difficult to stop the rest of the
    animal from following it

    http://www.billy.demon.nl
    Mail: billy-at-billy.demon.nl

    Tony Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Wish

    Tony Earnshaw wrote:
     

    This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
    I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
    relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
    SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
    employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
    efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
    corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.

    The "doornail" of which you speak is still selling on the order of 40
    million dollars a year. There are a lot of products that could only
    wish to be "dead" like that.
     
    Bela Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Wish

    On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
    >I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
    >relevant to the market.[/ref]

    So you were the guy who had the job of rebooting the servers during
    the recent DDOS attack huh?
     

    So that's 280 lawyers and 10 greedy execs then.
     

    The problem is Bela, you work for the most despised software company
    on Earth (congrats on beating Microsoft to #1, BTW!) I honestly know
    nothing of this "SCOSource", since what noice it makes is drowned out
    by the lies, threats and FUD your sbag employers are screaming
    every single day to pump the stock price.

    In any case, even if this "SCOSource" were the best offering in the
    world, do you honestly think anyone would touch it with t bargepole?
    Not likely is it? Unfortunately your company have made you lepers - I
    sure as hell wouldn't want a SCO employee joining any OpenSource
    effort I was involved with - too much chance of them trying to steal
    the code for themselves.
     

    Uhu, from what I'd read, SCO only managed a slim profit due to the
    "licenses" Microsoft and Sun acquired, and continue paying for... some
    might think they're bankrolling the court case actually.

    SCO, as a software company *is* dead. I feel sorry for you if you are
    actually an honest software engineer. Hopefully one day you'll find a
    job at a respectable company - it'll be good for your self esteme.

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Wish

    On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <com> wrote: 

    Bela,
    Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
    you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
    few SCOSource employees.

    Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
    from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
    the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
    open source and the GPL are offensive?

    But frankly, if you really think there is a future at SCO then I think
    you must be incredibly naiive.

    Your assertion that the company is more than a a "nothing but" needs to
    be challenged: do you really think that Sun and Microsoft needed those
    licenses? Where would SCO be without the money it received for them?

    Joe Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Wish

    Joe Dunning wrote:
     

    I don't know, and probably about the same. The company would have less
    cash, but would still be above water. I don't know any more about what
    it was that MS and Sun bought than you do; all I've seen are the same
    press releases (and rumors and speculation) that you have.
     
    Bela Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Wish

    On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Joe Dunning wrote: 
    >
    >Bela,
    >Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
    >you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
    >few SCOSource employees.
    >
    >Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
    >from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
    >the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
    >open source and the GPL are offensive?[/ref]

    I've known Bela for the better part of 20 years, and it's obvious that you
    don't have a clue. I can't speak for him (and I doubt that Bela would
    stoop to your level to reply). He has been one of the truly dedicated and
    competent people in Santa Cruz for as long as I can remember (and I missed
    perhaps two of the SCO Forum meetings while there were held in Santa Cruz).
    One factor in his staying may well be that he has a family to feed, a
    mortgage to pay, and a job -- which isn't all that easy to come by in
    today's economy.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/

    Democracy, n.:
    A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass
    meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy.
    Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
    whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion,
    prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
    Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
    -- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932),
    since withdrawn.
    Bill Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Wish

    On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:36:07 GMT, Bill Campbell <com> wrote:
     

    Well, perhaps my posting was more than a little rude and made suggestions
    that do not apply to Bela. That said, in general:

    1. Many ordinary SCO employees (not just the execs) have been able to sell
    shares in SCO at prices inflated by SCO's FUD. I don't know if Bela is one
    of those.

    2. Jobs are tight. Certainly, I would not advocate that SCO employees
    immediately resign. Nor would I expect any employees to post that they
    would leave if they could.

    3. Bela sought to portray SCO as a company with many employees supporting
    a legitimate product. Again, I don't expect him to post anything
    otherwise, but silence is also an option. If he chooses to publically
    defend SCO as a company, he must expect people to comment on it and
    question his role.

    Many people are very angry with SCO's unsustantiated allegations regarding
    Linux. One can support SCO, oppose them, remain neutral or remain silent.

    Joe Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Wish

    Joe Dunning wrote:
     

    I merely stated the truth. The people involved with SCOSource -- those
    licensing activities of the company which have been getting so much
    press attention -- are a tiny subgroup of the company. Most of the
    employees are running various aspects of the Unix software business of
    SCO -- from developing the products to support, marketing, sales, OEM
    relationships, administration, shipping, maintaining internal databases,
    training, maintaining employee benefits, cleaning out the wastebaskets,
    whatever functions a company of 300-some employees normally has. Those
    who repeatedly claim that SCO is "nothing but a shell" are just wrong.

    And as has always been the case, I post under my own initiative, not as
    any sort of company spokesperson or representative.
     
    Bela Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Wish

    Joe Dunning wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Bela,
    > Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
    > you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
    > few SCOSource employees.
    >
    > Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
    > from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
    > the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
    > open source and the GPL are offensive?
    >
    > But frankly, if you really think there is a future at SCO then I think
    > you must be incredibly naiive.
    >
    > Your assertion that the company is more than a a "nothing but" needs to
    > be challenged: do you really think that Sun and Microsoft needed those
    > licenses? Where would SCO be without the money it received for them?
    >[/ref]

    Joe,

    The issue here is not whether SCO management broke a few rules or took a
    few liberties with the Linux community; they did. But you can't hold a
    whole company responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted
    individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole commercial
    software system? And if the whole commercial software system is guilty,
    then isn't this an indictment of our economic institutions in general?
    I put it to you, Joe! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American
    society? Well, you can do what you want to SCO, but we're not going to
    sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!
    Gentlemen!

    Steve Lancour

    Steve Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Wish

    On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:14:50 -0400, Steve Lancour <com> wrote: 
    >
    >Joe,
    >
    >The issue here is not whether SCO management broke a few rules or took a
    >few liberties with the Linux community; they did. But you can't hold a
    >whole company responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted
    >individuals.[/ref]

    One can hold the company responsible for the actions of its executive
    management -- if those actions are done in the name of the company.

    However, one cannot hold each employee responsible, if they are not
    personally involved in the actions.

    Joe Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Wish

    Bela Lubkin <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     
     

    That's the point that the "dump SCO crowd" just don't understand.
    Maybe the present management is nuts and dangerous, but you
    can't spit in any major city without hitting a SCO system. Whatever
    happens with this lawsuit crap, the people running those systems
    are going to want to continue running them. Yeah, Linux can
    replace some of them, but many people would rather just stay with
    what they have, because it's working, and any change causes problems.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Wish

    FyRE <demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
     
     


    I agree that this lawsuit has all the appearance of what you
    say it is. If there is any legitimacy to it at all, SCO has bumbled
    the whole thing so much that it will simply be beyond amazing if
    it turns out that there actually is anything to it.

    I also think that whether they had or have a legitimate claim or
    not, this was the worst possible way to handle it; that the damage
    they have caused will come back and bite them too, doing no good
    for anyone except the sob's at Microsoft.

    But in spite of all that, SCO software isn't going to disappear.
    There is just too much of it. "most despised software company" ?
    Possibly: but the people who USE that software by and large
    don't care. A lot of them don't even KNOW about this mess and
    wouldn't understand any of it. They have businesses to run and
    SCO runs their business. These noisy squabbles are totally
    unimportant to them.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Wish

    Joe Dunning <invalid> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     
     
     
     
     

    It's also possible to remain open minded while deploring the situation.

    Precious little of that about.


    If there really was code misappropriated, SCO has every right to
    sue. Right now that's an "if" that looks amazingly unlikely, I
    agree. I also think that this was the wrong move regardless: just
    because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Wish

    invalid (Joe Dunning) wrote in message news:<JGpgb.692501$YN5.558643sccrnsc01>... 

    The rise in SCO's stock price is due to the actions of capitalism in the
    marketplace. If investors believed that SCO's case was only FUD and without
    merit (and they've certainly heard enough opinions to this effect),
    the stock wouldn't have stayed up.

    And no matter what the reason for the rise, you can't blame SCO employees
    for it. Do you blame Linux or people in the Linux world for the fact that
    Red Hat and VA Linux once had astronomical prices and valuations?
     

    What Bela said, and what I said earlier on a similar thread, is a
    *literal fact*. It's a fact whether or not you believe that SCO is
    the worst thing to come down the pike since Attila the Hun.
    Most of SCO's employees are indeed working on software
    products, both new and existing. New releases of OpenServer and UnixWare
    have come out recently and the next releases are currently in the pipeline.
    In addition there are some other completely new products such as SCOx that
    are in the works.

    Jonathan Schilling
    J. Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Wish

    On 7 Oct 2003 08:30:14 -0700, J. L. Schilling <com> wrote: 
    >
    >The rise in SCO's stock price is due to the actions of capitalism in the
    >marketplace. If investors believed that SCO's case was only FUD and without
    >merit (and they've certainly heard enough opinions to this effect),
    >the stock wouldn't have stayed up.[/ref]

    If SCO's statements turn out to be without merit then that is likely not
    capitalism at work but fraud!
     

    Their stock price rises are not comparable, because they were not a result of
    attacks on other people's intellectual property.
     
    >
    >What Bela said, and what I said earlier on a similar thread, is a
    >*literal fact*. It's a fact whether or not you believe that SCO is
    >the worst thing to come down the pike since Attila the Hun.
    >Most of SCO's employees are indeed working on software
    >products, both new and existing. New releases of OpenServer and UnixWare
    >have come out recently and the next releases are currently in the pipeline.
    >In addition there are some other completely new products such as SCOx that
    >are in the works.
    >[/ref]

    Frankly, I think it is irrelevent. I believe the only question that remains is
    whether Canopy will survive this.


    Joe Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Wish

    invalid (Joe Dunning) wrote in message news:<d%Bgb.57997$%h1.42825sccrnsc02>... 
    >
    > If SCO's statements turn out to be without merit then that is likely not
    > capitalism at work but fraud![/ref]

    No, fraud in this context would be something like a knowing
    misrepresentation of earnings. Filing a lawsuit that later loses
    in court would not be fraud -- by definition, any lawsuit has the
    distinct possibility of losing. Investors are free to judge for
    themselves whether or not the suit has merit.
     
    >
    > Their stock price rises are not comparable, because they were not a result of
    > attacks on other people's intellectual property.[/ref]

    I wasn't saying they were comparable in that sense. I'm just saying that
    employees of a company aren't responsible for irrational behavior on the
    part of the market (which is not to say that the SCO rise is or isn't
    rational :-).

    Jonathan Schilling
    J. Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Wish

    On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:22:44 +0000 (UTC), com wrote:

    [...SCO is dead as a software company...]
     

    Maybe a gradual slide, but since nobody will be maintaining the code
    base after SCO disappear, it's inevitable (and welcomed by a great
    many people).
     

    "Totally unimportant"? Sorry, but if my in-house commercial systems
    were (for some unimaginable reason) running SCO software, as an IT
    manager I'd be extremely worried about their imminent demise. Who will
    provide upgrades, fixes, new drivers, security patches and support for
    a dead, proprietory operating system? Since it's (extremely) closed
    source, no-one else can offer any updates, bugfixes, patches or
    drivers for new hardware in the future - indeed anyone who attempts
    this is likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuite from
    whichever vultures pick the IP bones of SCO. Nobody will want to touch
    their decrepit code with someone elses bargepole!

    Any company with any sort of sense would be migrating away as quickly
    as possible. If they're not, it shows the utter incompetence of their
    IT deparments. Anyone remotely involved in the decisions controlling
    software purchasing should be aware of their main supplier's
    self-imolation as a few greedy execs make themselves rich through
    blatant stock price manipulation.

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Wish

    On 6 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0400, Bela Lubkin <com> wrote:

    [...]
     

    Nice .sig material. You should take this comedy act to the stage;
    maybe a double act with Bozo McDarl. I realise you have to try to
    protect your stocks by denying the obvious but it's being played out
    before the world's eyes. SCO is a dead company, so far as software
    development is concerned. Not only will they inevitably lose the many
    lawsuits they've created and attracted, but IBM have played the patent
    cards covering all of "their" technologies - so I'm thinking the
    future is grim for the Microsoft funded Utah puppets.

    I feel sorry for you Bela; you seem like a decent guy and it's
    unfortunate that you've chosen to continue the (one would assume
    thankless) task of working for these miserable sbags...

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Wish

    On 7 Oct 2003 08:30:14 -0700, com (J. L.
    Schilling) wrote:
     
    >
    >The rise in SCO's stock price is due to the actions of capitalism in the
    >marketplace. If investors believed that SCO's case was only FUD and without
    >merit (and they've certainly heard enough opinions to this effect),
    >the stock wouldn't have stayed up.[/ref]

    Garbage. Take a look at the major buyers of SCO stock. Notice anything
    "strange"? Not only does one of the major shareholders have Bill Gates
    WIFE on the board, but there are numerous links to other venture
    capital companies with similar links, along with Sun of course. The
    sad thing is that taking a look at finance. you'd only see
    the "positive" SCO news. It's almost criminal how one-sided the media
    press has been here. The stock price has continued to climb even
    during the worst farces (demonstration of "evidence of copied code"
    being debunked, various other lies exposed almost daily). Any quick
    google at Darl McBrides' deplorable "career" will pretty much show the
    path this will take. He's nothing but a litigeous who's seen a
    quick method to make a few bucks - if and when SCO are killed in the
    process, then so be it...

    Would YOU buy SCO stock? Hardly - there's only one direction it can
    move in the long term...
     

    As far as I'm aware, Redhat and VA both produced software, instead of
    buying up old code and then attempting to leech off of successful
    companies by threatening their customers - mafia style. They have
    never spent months on end spewing an endless tirade of outright lies,
    especially whilst using the work (for FREE) of the people they were
    abusing and slandering in public.
     
    >
    >What Bela said, and what I said earlier on a similar thread, is a
    >*literal fact*. It's a fact whether or not you believe that SCO is
    >the worst thing to come down the pike since Attila the Hun.[/ref]

    I demand you retract that statement. Attila at least did his own dirty
    work and rewarded his followers. McBride and co are out for
    themselves. Bela and his small tribe of "techies" will be left
    swinging.
     

    .... so they say. All I've heard are speeches from SCO claiming they'll
    be adding even more GPL'ed code to their ailing product line. There's
    no reason at all to buy SCO unless your systems are hopelessly
    dependent upon the company, like a crack-addict to a pusher. Since SCO
    is just a version of UNIX, migration to a cheaper, faster and better
    supported OS should almost always be possible. I strongly doubt any
    third party developers will be producing products for SCO alone now -
    indeed many I work with are actually DROPPING SCO support if it ever
    existed!

    But, please keep dreaming if it makes your life easier. I just pity
    your customers...

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Wish

    On 7 Oct 2003 14:53:33 -0700, J. L. Schilling <com> wrote: 
    >>
    >> If SCO's statements turn out to be without merit then that is likely not
    >> capitalism at work but fraud![/ref]
    >
    >No, fraud in this context would be something like a knowing
    >misrepresentation of earnings.[/ref]

    That's one example of fraud.

    Filing a lawsuit that later loses 

    Yes, but if the company (in public statements outside the courtroom)
    deliberately mis-represents the facts that are the basis of the case, then
    that will certainly put the execs and company in legal jeopardy. It may be
    fraud, or perhaps other laws that apply (I).
     

    Yes, but if they rely on public statements to make their decisions,
    and those statements were untrue, then the company must take some
    responsibility for that.
     
    >>
    >> Their stock price rises are not comparable, because they were not a result of
    >> attacks on other people's intellectual property.[/ref]
    >
    >I wasn't saying they were comparable in that sense. I'm just saying that
    >employees of a company aren't responsible for irrational behavior on the
    >part of the market (which is not to say that the SCO rise is or isn't
    >rational :-).[/ref]

    The behavior is not irrational if it is based on statements that the
    investors did not realize were false. One could argue that the rise of
    RHAT and other linux companies' stock was irrational, but the rise of
    SCO's stock is not irrational, since it is based on SCO's public
    statements.

    The employees are responsible if the behavior was based
    on false information from the employees given in the form of public
    statements. That is not to say that all employees are responsible.

    Let's discuss another comparison: a gang robs a bank. They drop the money
    trying to escape and you pick it up: are you completely clean?
    This comparison would be valid if:
    1. The company knowingly made false statements that pumped up the stock
    and
    2. The employee knew those statements were false (or had good reason
    to believe the statements were false) and
    3. The employee sold stock at the inflated prices.


    Joe Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139