Slashdot Mirror
SCOoby Snacks
A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking. Novell is asking the court to dismiss SCO's lawsuit against them. Groklaw has taken a look at what is necessary to prove a 'slander of title' claim. And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.
I like how of the five reasons, only one of them even mentions Linux, and that's a questionable claim at best!
And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.
Yeah, this is exactly why their web server runs Linux.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Shouldn't this read "SCO UNIX (R) is Unencumbered by adherence to the law"?
Seriously though, looking at what SCO is attempting to do to IBM, how can one call this "unencumbered"? The only company that is unencumbered in SCO's vision of the world is SCO. Any of their partners are legaly encumbered by adhering to SCO's license arangement. Anything you add to SCO appears to become a part of SCO's IP if their claims are correct.
But wait, doesn't that make SCO just as bad as the GPL, even from SCO's own perspective?
-Matt
All of the dates mentioned in the case studies are early 90s and back. Zenez started with SCO in 1983! Gee, I wonder why they didn't consider Linux? Hmm...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Linux is a proven, stable, and reliable platform.
2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Linux is backed by multiple, experienced vendors
3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Linux has a Committed development team and is actually going somewhere
4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
Linux is Secure.
5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Linux is Legally Unencumbered and Open
ROTFLMAO
First, butter is probably a bad analogy, because it loses its independent identity when it is mixed into the cake and cooked.
Contributions to Linux are discreet and each component can be uniquely identified and its heritage proved.
Second, stipulating that SCO did indeed own certain discreet elements which have gotten incorporated into Linux, then I agree.
Components that are provably owned by SCO can be removed.
The actual argument in court is about whether SCO did, in fact, own these things that got incorporated into Linux. SCO claims they do, IBM claims they don't.
Currently, IBM and the court are waiting for SCO to show what they owned, so that the ownership claim can be evaluated properly.
SCO hasn't shown it yet, and the little they have shown outside court has been proved not to be owned by them. But since that occurred outside court, it doesn't matter to the case.
I think SCO's basic problem is that they are pursuing this case under some presuppositions that are clearly false, and will be proved to be false in court. But that day is still a long way off, since the case is still in the discovery phase.
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
And as far as applications - let's face it - there's more then enough room for many, many similar applications that people can choose from. For example - web browsers. Some people (like myself) prefer Opera, others Mozilla, some Konqueror, some Galeon, some Firefox, some people still use Lynx, Mac folks seem to like Safari... and yes, there's some poor, poor fools still using Internet Exploder.
Take Word Processing - go back to the early days of Dos / Windows - some people wanted to use WordPerfect, others Wordstar, some people PFS Professional Write, and there was more then enough room for all those applications - it was which one you liked best, and most of them could write files to various formats for sharing information. Now, we have OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, etc, and again - these all write to multiple file formats - just pick the one you like best. Competition and Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me.. which is the opposite route SCO is going with their money grab and frivolous lawsuit.
When the heck will SCO learn that they are fighting and already lose the game.
You think that their goal is to win a lawsuit. I disagree; I think their goal is to cast FUD on the GPL specifically, and open-source in general.
I mean they are sueing over Code similarities.... It's the Same thing as bill gates patent of binary Numbers (0,1) it's not going to happen.
Exactly. They're not stupid, they know that they have no case. Therefore, winning isn't their goal. Even if they lose, the FUD that they've spread is going to stick, even if it's just a little bit. I can't even propose linux-based projects because my employer (a fortune-50 insurance company) doesn't want the hassle. The FUD is working already.
IMO - I think they should just give up, and distribute what $ they have left, and go away from the world of computing.
If they just go away, the FUD sticks. If they get bought out, the FUD sticks. If they get shot down legally in no uncertain terms, some of the FUD will _still_ stick. Their goal isn't to win money, their goal is to try to destroy or cripple the Open Source Software community.
When one's enemies' actions are illogical, it makes sense to re-evaluate what that enemy's goals might be.
Apparently, some guy posting at Yahoo Finance has done some digging:
t ml s ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002580/xslF345X02/form3_112603cohenex.xml
e .html c .gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002585/xslF345X02/form3_112603royceex.xml
t the same time Cohen stopped talking about SCOX and Deutsche Bank takes over the PR duties, initiating coverage with highly suspect rationale and rating:p hp/309220 1
0 0950136 03002896/file001.txt
2 09.gtscodec9/BNStory/Technology/
The SEC will be *VERY* interested in this. The SCO debacle is a big story, but SCO may simply be a pawn in a bigger scandal. The big story is about market manipulation and insider trading. It isn't just about pump and dump. It is about buy, then pump, then short, then dump, then cover using the money of Royce clients and some assistance from the Royal Bank of Canada. SCOX investors are being played for fools.
Here we go...
Jonathan Cohen is the CEO of JHC Capital and is an investment advisor to Royce & Associates. Cohen is the fund manager for the Royce Technology Value fund.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/technologyValue.h
Under Cohen's direction, this fund has acquired 430,000 shares of SCOX.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rtv.html
He is also the CEO and Director of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC) and owns 139,100 shares:
www.ticc.com/management.html#cohen
www.
Charles M. Royce is President, Chief Investment Officer of Royce & Associates.
www.roycefunds.com/about/inside_royc
The Royce Low-Priced Stock Fund owns 943,600 shares of SCOX:
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rlp.html
However, Charles Royce is also a Director of TICC and personally owns 69,500 shares of TICC.
www.ticc.com/management.html#royce
www.se
Royce & Associates owns a total of 1.4M shares of SCOX.
Cohen went on a whirlwind publicity tour the second half of last year to pump SCO for the Royce Technology Value fund that he manages for Royce & Associates.
www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html
A
siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.
RBC Dain Rauscher is the U.S. wealth management subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada.
www.rbcdain.com
RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. was an underwriter for the IPO of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC), underwriting an initial share allotment of 1,304,348 shares of TICC.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/00
Of course RBC initiates coverage of TICC with an "Outperform" rating.
10:22am 01/15/04 Tech Investment Capital started at 'outperform' by RBC - CBS MarketWatch.com
RBC also participated in the private placement for SCOX, accounting for 2.3M of the Series A shares. www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031
"An RBC spokesman was reluctant to comment, saying the SEC filing was about how SCO operates its business. He said that RBC's "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions."
From reason number 5 on their own site:" The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value."
Translation: We will sell you something that is distributed for free so we can make ourselves (and our stockholders) richer.
This must be the only true thing that SCO has ever stated...
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
Not because of this at least. A great post to usenet made in the early 90's sometime. I didn't find the original post, only a repost from 95.
Still, it is funny to see how their enterprise unix compared to linux back then.
Cardkey's in particular. Note that the testimonial mentions choosing "SCO and Compaq". I know about this one because I work at an airport, and we're phasing out our old Cardkey access control system right now (which runs on the aformentioned SCO and Compaq platform).
First off, Cardkey doesn't exist anymore, really. They were bought out by Johnson Controls years ago. Secondly, Compaq became HP years ago. Thirdly, most vendors are moving to Windows 2000 based ACS, so I'd be very surprised if Johnson Controls was still using SCO for new installs. They have to support their older Pegasys systems, but I'd be willing to bet they've gone Wintel along with everyone else.
All this raises a good question: how many NEW installs is SCO doing? Who's buying OpenServer and UnixWare NOW?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Those arguments are called "job " in Germany. (of course the Germans actually use the equivalent german words).
The interesting thing is: Those arguments "If you do X, we will loose Y jobs" never ask, how many jobs will be slashed if the governement won't do X. Take steel tariffs for instance: How many jobs suffered because steel tariffs increased the steel prices for american companies? There was a calculation for the effect of steel tariffs back in the Reagen era to job count. Even though those tariffs saved about 55,000 jobs at the steel companies, the steel consuming industries like car makers slashed 130,000 jobs at the same time because of the increased costs for steel.
So if you are confronted with a similar argument in a dispute, just ask your opponent, how many jobs would be hurt by the increased costs for the following parts of the economy chain.
The Safeco Field "study" is whack. The Micros 8700 only runs on SCO UNIX. It's not like the customer chose SCO at all, it was "we need a point of sale system, let's get a Micros 8700". The 8700 is a very widely deployed system that is very reliable. It's also been around since christ was a pup, which is probably why it uses SCO.
The way SCO presents the Safeco Field study, as if the customer chose SCO, is deceptive at best, in my opinion.