Darl McBride Interview

mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.

Comments

Delerium

[Znork]

Now, this must be the final proof that McBride is delerious:

"You go back to SCO's brand in the 1990s and it was Unix on Intel. SCO was primed to seize the multibillion-dollar server market of Unix on Intel that hit in the early 2000s that has in fact shifted over to Red Hat."

SCO was primed to go down the drain, even without Linux anywhere. Most people were already migrating or had migrated off SCO before Linux became a contender; migrating to Solaris or Windows, or basically anything that wasnt quite as bad as SCO.

The man is completely delusional and should be locked up in a small padded room for his own good.

As someone who used SCO in 1993...

[MosesJones]

I can tell you that this is totally and utterly...

True.

It was a pile of rubbish, we had it running our net connection, all it had to do was act as a mail server and dial-up modem. It fell over on a regular basis and was generally a pain to work with. I also had to develop some Curses applications on it and ended up developing them in Eiffel with a thin layer onto Curses which meant I could do the work on Solaris.

Re:How hard is this?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

There are two different kinds of code here.

One is code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This is the basis for the letter sent to Linux users.

The other is code which SCO claims that IBM has contributed to Linux in violation of its contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit against IBM.

The former code is what could be discovered using source code comparisons.

The latter code is known: it is JFS, NUMA, etc., which IBM developed and then contributed to Linux. SCO claims that these projects are derived works of Unix, and, per the IBM contract, SCO claims ownership over that code.

You have no idea

[leonbrooks]

sco pays coders to do code

No, The SCO Group (TSG) pays lawyers to do barratry.

The Santa Cruz Operation is probably the company you had in mind, and they don't exist. They sold their UNIX rights to Caldera and renamed themselves Tarantella. And apparently are still producing code. Hopefully, they're now producing good code, because I've seen SCO UNIX and it ain't a pretty sight.

AFAICT TSG (a glove-puppet for The Canopy Group) have never lifted their finger to any creative or constructive work in their entire collective lives. Their only visible occupation is "suer". They make money from suing.

if ibm really stole sco's code, the are guilty and have to pay sco for it.

I agree. But this is not what TSG are claiming.

TSG do claim to own derivative works (including hardware) that IBM wrote and the agreement says IBM have the rights to. They are also claiming ownership by derivation of every operating system in the world. I'll read that again. TSG claim to own every OS there is. Even Windows. I haven't seen them explicitly claim to own DOS yet, but hey, they sued (and I think rightfully for a change) over what Microsoft did to DR-DOS.

So... you're for who?

Re:Bottom Line

[shadowbearer]

SCO's legal costs are being paid under a contingency arrangement (about halfway down)

SB