Slashdot Mirror
Darl & SCO Overview
HAL9OOO writes "I found an article that as well as giving a good overview of "SCO - The Story So Far" also provides an interesting insight into the character of a certain Mr Darl McBride Esq."
It's a fairly lengthy article providing a lot of insight. Necessary reading to anyone new the SCO/Linux thing, and recommended to anyone who just wants some interesting details on SCOs position on the whole thing.
1) Buy out SCO. Hostile style. Buy up enough of the stock to have them vote to merge under IBM.
Lets see. Lets look at our friend Mr. McBride. According to the SEC, he has 8,000 shares that he purchased at $1.13 (thats $9040). If IBM came in on a hostile takeover today, they would probably end up paying about $10 / share (the current price is $9.26, but a hostile takeover is usually a little higher). So, at $10 bucks a share, Mr. McBride is looking for a gain of $70,960 - all for nothing more than acting like a complete asshole.
That to me sounds like a real good way to get out:
1) No need for pesky proof
2) Get rid of a operating system that drags down any company that owns it like a pair of concrete slippers.
3) ??
4) Much, *much* profit.
IBM can handle the heat. I think they should call SCO's bluff and see what happens then.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Dummy. Hemp ain't marijuana.
hemp n. any plant of the genus Cannabis; a coarse bushy annual with palmate leaves and clusters of small green flowers; yields tough fibers and narcotic drugs [syn: {cannabis}]
My dictionary disagrees.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
This "analyst" was not a programmer, and apparently has no knowledge of any of the history of the *nix source code bases. All she can verify is match-ups shown to her, and not where they came from, which is the real issue.5 .html) has shown where SCO's previous owners spent 2 years unifying their Unix and Linux code bases. Eric Raymond has also pointed out that Unix and Linux share some common source code taken from BSD. Either one of these known conditions would produce match-ups between parts of the source code bases.
Cringley (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2003060
This woman's analysis is meaningless without this context. Unfortunately, techies are the only ones who really understand this. In the financial world, however, this probably counts as real evidence, and people will foolishly look to make a quick easy buck on their stocks. All I can say is, the stock market is best used for long-term investment, and I don't see much of a future for SCO in the long term - especially if IBM is willing to fight it out.
Linux doesn't, Alan Cox wrote the Linux stack IIRC.
The more you know, the less you understand.
Actually this page reports it as .0001$/share. So he picked all 32885 shares for about $32.
Well, the majority shareholder can't order them to cease and desist. That's not how it works. The directors have a duty to look our for the interests of all the shareholders, not just the majority. In fact, the minority shareholders could sue the company if the directors knowingly did something that was not in the best interests of the company.
What IBM would do is start a proxy fight (you don't even need 50% ownership for this) and vote their own directors onto the board. These directors would still do what is best for all the stockholders, they might just have a different idea of what is best.
They would still get sued, though. SCO's market cap is up almost 10x in the past three months, and this must be a big reason. So, if the board scotched the suit and the share price fell back below $1, the board would be sued within hours.
Milo
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Its taken more than a decade, millions of man hours and an international movement bent on software sovereignty to poise Linux as the fastest-growing player in information technology. Now, on the cusp of punching through proprietary softwares kung-fu grip on the market, a fuming little Utah County company threatens to stomp Linux dead in its tracks.
Ive been pounding the table here for a year or so saying theres no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model. Thats Darl McBride, president and CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX and, until recently, Linux operating systems.
Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that SCO posted hundreds of millions in losses from 1994 to 2002.
But ever since determining it owns the ark and the covenant to the enterprise software industry, says McBride, SCOs bad fortune is on the upswing.
Through a series of intellectual property transfers, SCO wound up with the rights to certain dated distributions of UNIX, the proprietary software platform that Linux was patterned after. SCO asserts that code from its UNIXes was copied into recent Linux releases. Now the company is demanding that commercial Linux users cough up licensing fees for the UNIX in their Linux, or prepare for a tussle with SCOs lawyers. And to show it means business, SCO has taken on computer giant IBM in a lawsuit that could reshape the balance of power among software makers. SCO insists Big Blue owes it billions for allegedly illegally contributing UNIX code to the Linux kernelthe core chunk of code underlying most distributions of the Linux operating system.
Should SCO prevail, besides reaping its own billions, software megalith Microsoft stands to win the war of enterprise operating systems. Linux has crept up on Microsoft, challenging its stranglehold on the server market by offering better prices, performance, security and reliability. And several Linux companies are positioning themselves to take a stab at Microsofts 94 percent hold on desktop operating systems. Its a sign that the open-source software development model is edging out Microsofts proprietary model.
People are tired of buying cars with their hoods welded shut. Thats what theyve had in the software industry for years, says Bruce Perens, a Linux cheerleader and open-source advocate.
With Linux software, source code is open for anyone to improve upon or add to, the premise being: the more heads you have working on each problem, the less likely something will be overlooked. Whereas proprietary software is locked up, accessible only to its owner, who isnt necessarily driven to make the best product, but rather the easiest buck. And, as opposed to selling the operating system as a product in itself, open-source proponents see it as the infrastructure upon which valuable applications can be added, and services rendered.
Leading the charge against Linux is McBride, the blustering executive every Linux dweeb has come to loathe. Hes no geek, says Benjamin Choate, a self-trained Linux user living in Logan. His tans too good.
Choate is among the Linux devotees calling SCOs claims ludicrous. Whats more, they say the company is embellishing its position to sow fear, uncertainty and doubtFUD for shortin the minds of Linux developers, vendors and users. SCO opponents say its a mudslinging strategy to scare Linux users into paying up, and to make the slingers product look more inviting than the slingees.
See, SCO isnt really even SCO. Its proprietary claims are for works it didnt create. The veracity of those claims, many critics believe, hasnt stood up to the most trivial scrutiny. And at every turn, those same critics say the company has revealed itself to be inconsistent and unforthcoming, leading them to conclude that SCO is merely extorting Linux users for unwarranted damages. A short history lesson is probably in order.
In June 2002, t
This story was previously linked as http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/22/17 24207&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid= 88
I has already been discussed here
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
article was posted here
by NZheretic : Mon 09 Jun 03:30AM:
Man, we (Salt Lake) don't claim him. He is from a little farther to the south, where all the crack-heads live.
Provide a
link.
The hearing was delayed until Feb. 6. The reasons for the delay seem uncertain.
Why do you think so? When Caldera went public as a Linux company they raised $250M. They can piss away that amount, before they face a liquidity problem. As a matter of fact that is precisely what happened. They were running out of cash and the IBM suit was a last desperate Hail Mary act.
Sad the Linux community and IBM has to pay for it. To some extend it is good that Royal Bank of Canada stepped in (Behest of MS?)as there is a chance that case gets thrown out before their $50M infusing is gone.
This means IBM and RedHat can collect something, plus the corporate shiled to Canopy might just have been pierced meaing they can be held accountable as well as the offecers personally.
Help fight continental drift.
LSD/THC
Nah, his symptoms sound more like crack/coke/meth withdrawl-induced psychosis.
To see the world through Darl's eyes, you might try a "nightmare hallucinogen" like mandrake or jimson weed. An unguided peyote trip could do it too.
I believe very few would "move over to the BSD". Stop spreading the meme. BSD license is not good, BSD licensed things lets others steal your work and sell it without you ever getting anything, and that's not good. With the GPL you at least get any changes back (i.e. the functionality).
You may not like the BSD license, but when someone uses BSD code for other projects, its NOT stealing. It complying with the license. If Microsoft wants to release a copy of BSD as Windows 2004, and keep the code secret, they legally can, as the license allows it.
Please go spread your FUD elsewhere. I prefer the GPL myself, but you GPL nazis are getting old. The fact is, the BSD license has more freedom than the GPL license, including the freedom to NOT share the code back. Oh yea, and as you probably know, you only get the changes back with GPL IF they distribute the binaries.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
OK, so you're a lazy ass fuck who doesn't know how to follow links or use Google. I don't mind doing it for you, really... Satisfied now?