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.
Amen to that. Here's what I would do in IBM's position.
1) Buy out SCO. Hostile style. Buy up enough of the stock to have them vote to merge under IBM.
2) Fire the entire board of directors. A severance package of one pack of oreos and cab fare
3) ??????
4) Profit....or at least not losing money on this crap, which is the next best thing.
The things SCO didn't realize is that while it is possible for a mouse to annoy an elephant, sooner or later the elephant will just stomp, and all the elephant will think of it will be "how do I get these mouse guts off of my foot"
ESR's paper on the SCO thing shows how the relationships between several unixes. Given the large amount of intermingling, it's not surprising at all to find common pieces of code in different versions of unix.
You *can* steal something that is free. First you copy it into your codebase, then you claim that it is your, and then you sue the person you copied it from. If you are successful in getting them to remove it, you stole it.
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!
That's not breach of contract since the board was clearly acting in the interest of shareholders at the time of the suit. A hostile takeover is not a cheap thing, and getting 10x your face value for the shares makes it hard to argue otherwise.
Now the majority shareholder could order them to cease and desist, and if they didn't do so could have them fired and file breach of contract, but that's not going to happen.
In fact, despite all the talk about buying SCO out, that's not likely to happen either. According to Yahoo! insiders and 5%+ owners own 68% of the company. If insiders own over 50% then a hostile takeover is impossible without someone defecting -- and those trades are usually limited by SEC rules in the first place. This is why hostile takeovers have become a thing of the past - companies have learned that having the majority of shares being held by employees, along with SEC trading restrictions, make hostile takeovers very, very difficult.
Hrm... even if she's right and it's not some strange conincidence, is there old BSD code in Linux? That should be checkable.
Which is likely why SCO won't show everybody. Imagine the egg on their face when developers from around the world step forward to claim their code.... and it's not SCO's code.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
I don't agree - I think this is a similar situation to negotiating with Terroists/Hostage Takers/Bank Robbers etc - you don't, otherwise it will keep happening. If IBM buy out SCO, then practically every dying tech firm will sue IBM in the hopes of getting bought out. Better to crush them in court - especially if IBM can find a way to countersue and drive SCO into the ground. It will take longer to fight it in court than to buy them out but it will be better for everyone in the long run (except for SCO :-)
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
I don't like to answer my own posts, but think I picked the wrong example before. Consider Mr. Thomas Raimondi, Jr (director). He got 32,885 shares at .01 / share!!! If you doubt SCO's intentions, go ahead and do the math yourself.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I almost posted that IBM should just give in and buy SCO in an earlier one of these threads, but then I thought about it a little more...
SCO is sending all these letters to corporate Linux users saying, "Stay away from Linux, because it violates our IP." If IBM buys SCO and open sources Unix it might prevent any further legal action, but it also might appear to lend some credibility to SCO's claims. Thus IBM is a hero to the average Linux geek, but the corporate world still sees the community as a bunch of thieves who got bailed out by the deep pockets of IBM.
Therefore, let this go to court and let IBM's lawyers prove that SCO is full of it to begin with. That way the Linux community is vindicated and the only people who look like they've done anything wrong are SCO.
Actually, with the claims that there is code that is the same in Linux and SCO's products, that should be enough to file a lawsuit against SCO for copyright violation. Then demand that SCO disclose the source (without any NDA) so a review of SCO's code can be done and so it can be determined if they indeed have violated the GPL and by extension engaged in copyright violations.
To quote many over the top political leaders..."we cannot support this type of terrorism, we cannot agree to their demands"....
By purchasing SCO, no matter how easy it might make the end of this problem, it encourages others to try the same stunt.
SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack.
Destroy SCO, burn everything, leave nothing standing.....
Unfortunate choice of words, no? People raise all kinds of hell when "GNU/Linux" is mentioned.. Must say I prefer the latter ;)
668.5
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
From the text:
"Should SCO prevail, besides reaping its own billions, software megalith Microsoft stands to win the war of enterprise operating systems."
Exactly HOW did the author come to this idea?
Because if SCO were to somehow obtain a victory, the masses who use GNU/Linux would just move over to BSD. But such an obviouus conclusion would have made for a short article.
Microsoft is more likely to win via software patents than SCO's claims.
The article describes Darl as "one angry man."
Aren't they supposed to use "mad?"
Not to be a troll or anything, but this is a really concise article, with both points of view. Face it people, most articles to date have been clearly biased pro/anti SCO, yes, even Forbes, the various hobbyist sites (even my own, check my sig and SCO Report). I'm not saying that's bad or anything, but the non-nerdy don't want to dive into specific details, they want a clear, concise view of things, and this article provides it. Perhaps it's done by SCO's hometown paper, but it still seems to be balanced reporting.
This is one repost I don't mind. If anyone asks you what this sco fiaSCO is about, you can direct them to this article.
Funny thing is, I was trying to explain the situation to someone over dinner last night. This article does an awesome job of nailing the key points.
McBride should note: (emphasis added)
"SCO wound up with the rights to certain dated distributions of UNIX, the proprietary software platform that Linux was patterned after..."
That's pretty much as accurate a statement as any about the whole situation.
It's also calling McBride an unsuccessdul salesman. And there's a juicy comment about "Bruce Perens", as "a Linux cheerleader". I'm sure Perens is happy with that sttement.
Overall, it really reasserts the lack of sense behind the whole thing. The only possible justification for SCO group's actions is the persuit of money for the sake of money....
Any chance of them changin their front page? I mean, they should get rid of all that betterment drival and just come clean. The fact that their making money hand over keyboard from selling *linux* licenses right now is absolutly, well... I'm not going to meniton it...
Pengiuns may be flightless, but they have thick skin and kick some serious ass on ski slopes.
-=fshalor
There is zero insight in that article. Quotes from both sides. Darl says that something is in a contract in plain sight. Everyone else says it's not in that contract. Does the reporter bother to check? No. He just reports both quotes. Same think throughout the whole article. Both sides give easily verifiable contradictory information, and the reporter never bothers to look at primary sources, even if they are openly available on the web. It is lousy reporting.
Thank God so many of you are quite accomplished CS players. Duck-run-strafe-fire!
668.5
by NZheretic : Mon 09 Jun 03:30AM:
Yeah, it's a dupe, but I still find this one funny.
"I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's 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." That's Darl McBride, president and CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX and, until recently, Linux operating systems."
Couldn't say it better myself.
Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. I get it (finally). Darl won't be stopped until he's either rich or passed on to the great closed source world in the sky.
Having dealt with these pump & dump attorneys in several ventures, the unfortunate realization one makes is that there is nothing - not a single thing - a good, legitimate enterprise or individual can do to stop these thieves. Try suing them to stop them from stealing assets? They'll stall your legal action out - make it take a couple years (by then, there's never anything left). Only tort reform can make an impact.
Darl and his kin are the modern equivelent to a roundworm. Their parasitism preys on the output of others. Parasitism's a natural occurance in the competitive dynamic of life, but at least in other systems, the host is allowed to attempt to rid itself of them. In the US, nearly all legal means of dealing with parasites are rendered ineffective by the diseased court system.
Legal parasites make bogus claims to the results of others work - Linux, patent claims of obvious items or with prior art and increasingly abuse two disasters in the US legal system (continually propped up by one of the political parties):
1. A distorted, manipulated intellectual property award system that allows parties that contibute payola and/or recognize and reinforce the system to be the beneficiaries of an award of others property. Hire attorney. Grease wheel. Pay off the party. Get patent award snuck through. Hire more attorneys. Sue the rightful owners of your "property" for infringement. Get rich. Pay party and attorneys again.
2. A judicial system filled with crooks and fools. More than two thirds of the justices are of the same system. On the rare occasion you get an idealist, they're quickly focused on inventing absurd laws (like throwing out constitutional guaranteed rights, or inventing absurd new rights) and kept out of the back room where the money flows. It's like Zaphod Beeblebrox of the Hitchhiker's Guide books, the fools are there to distract the attention from you while your wallet is being lifted.
U.S. citizens that look to crooked third world nations (e.g Cuba, Venezuela) should realize their legal system no better. The only difference is that the crooks that run the system in the US are richer than most elsewhere.
So open sourcers, until you're permitted to rid yourself of parasites (which unfortunately means both of your parties - and if you don't think your (D) or (R) friends are bought and paid for, then you know which category above you belong in!), understand that your great open source universe represents a dream host to these people. Darl's only uniqueness is that he's one of the first.
McBride and company are quick to tout the warranty advantages of proprietary software over public systems like Linux. Ever since taking on IBM, SCO has persistently goaded Linux distributors to protect their end users by offering indemnification--that is, agreeing to foot the bill if some company, say SCO, sues for intellectual property violations. As recently as October, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell reiterated the talking point. "If IBM is so confident that Linux is free and clear, why don't they indemnify their users against any lawsuit SCO could bring against them?" he asked.
That was then. Novell and Hewlett Packard (HP) have since announced that they will indemnify their Linux customers. However, McBride managed to spin the implications of those announcements 180 degrees to SCO's favor. "By announcing the programme they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the programme, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position," McBride told the online British technology magazine VNUnet.
My concern with all of this crap, is the fact that someone hasn't forced SCO to shut the hell up. It reminds me of the Bully in grade school. He would consistantly beat up on kids every day. Some even to the point of actual damage, and he was NEVER suspended. Never. Ever. I think that is what needs to be really focused on. Not so much as "When will all of this madness end?", but rather "How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"
Also, from the article: "[Darl]I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's 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."
What is with this messianic attitude? Perhaps what Darl does not realize is that folks contribute to Linux and other open source projects through a variety of reasons. Notably, some contributions to open source have happened via tax-payer funded projects from a variety of nations throughout the world. Other contributions are made from the generous and charitable contributions of others who simply want to make a difference. Darl wants to exploit those contributions and leverage his band of merry lawyers to "liberate" Linux from the rest of us. Only his liberation is not for anything other than selfish desires (like any criminal who sees nothing wrong with theft) with no respect to the common good.
From the article:
But ever since determining it owns the "ark and the covenant to the enterprise software industry," says McBride, SCO's bad fortune is on the upswing.
Shouldn't that be "ark of the Covenant"? Maybe that explains their reluctance to actually open up the code and show what was "stolen." I, for one, would love to see Darl's head melt.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Anybody who's been exposed to even a little television in the last 20-30 years should be able to pick up on this explanation.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Leading the charge against Linux is McBride, the blustering executive every Linux dweeb has come to loathe
We finally get to the point where it's ok, pehaps cool even, to be called a 'geek' or 'nerd', and so they start calling us dweebs. What's next? Linux Douchebags? Linux Shitstains?