Slashdot Mirror
SCO Announces Product Line Updates
ArbiterOne writes "Techworld has the story: SCO has unveiled their upcoming product plans, including a new release of UnixWare and a version for point-of-sale devices. Oddly enough, the article states that 'SCO's continuing Unix intellectual property lawsuits against IBM, Novell and others is apparently putting customers off.' I wonder how that could have happened?"
The SCO Group has produced a new-product road map and an aggressive marketing plan to try and recharge its flagging core Unix business.
SCO actually produces a product?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Does this mean they actually have developers? Or did they just up the product version number?
Rule #1: Don't sue your own customers!
I mean it's that simple
A new kind of lawsuit.
"We're looking at this long term, and we see value that we can provide to our customers now and in the future," said Marc Modersitzki, a SCO spokesman. "Not only do we have a road map, but we're delivering on the road map."
It's obvious SCO's "roadmap" is less product-oriented than legal. But you have to wonder, why they would invest any resources in an aggressive marketing plan when their PR quotient is so incredibly low--much like their recent financials.
They are not the "vibrant, leading UNIX vendor to regain market share lost to Windows"... that would be like the US sending troops to Vietnam to "regain Hanoi". War over. Done deal. Time to close shop, SCO.
Sigs cause cancer.
Hey, it has worked for Direct TV and smart card programmers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
mcdonalds and many others WILL use linux, not their software.
First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.
1. SCO announces new products.
2. Linus announces new kernel updates.
So that FedEx package with CD-ROMs from "anonymous insider" finally arrived at OSDL?
litigious bastards
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
SCO Announces Broad Array of New Unix Products, Channel Support and Training Programs
/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced a broad array of new and enhanced UNIX products as well as new channel support and training programs. The upcoming product releases mark the largest across-the-board group of product enhancements from SCO in several years. New or enhanced UNIX products from SCO and their expected availability dates include:
LINDON, Utah, Jun 15, 2004
* UnixWare 7.1.4 (now shipping)
* Smallfoot embedded UNIX (now shipping)
* SCOoffice Server 4.1 (July 2004)
* Vintela Authentication from SCO Release 2.6 (August 2004)
* Legend -- the code name for the next release of OpenServer
(1st Quarter 2005)
* Reseller training and support programs
UnixWare 7.1.4 -- A major upgrade to the UnixWare product line, 7.1.4 includes many enhancements that continue to keep UnixWare as the most reliable, stable, scalable and affordable operating system in its class. UnixWare 7.1.4 adds support to enable UnixWare to run thousands of Java and Web Services applications.
SCOoffice Server 4.1 -- SCOoffice Server 4.1 is a reliable, full-featured Internet e-mail and collaboration solution for small and medium businesses. SCOoffice Server stops e-mail viruses, filters out junk e-mail, and secures e-mail access. Providing more than just e-mail services, SCOoffice Server also delivers a real-time collaboration solution for scheduling group meetings, sharing contact lists and folders, and managing group task lists. SCOoffice Server integrates with Microsoft(R) Outlook(R) and industry-standard e-mail readers and Web browsers.
Smallfoot -- SCO's formal entry into the embedded UNIX market, Smallfoot consists of a toolkit that is used to create the Smallfoot embedded UNIX operating system. The toolkit is a rapid development tool that allows organizations to create a small software footprint operating system (i.e., Smallfoot embedded UNIX) customized for a variety of applications including Point of Sale, gaming, hand-held and a variety of other devices.
Vintela Authentication from SCO Release 2.6 -- Vintela Authentication from SCO (VAS) is the company's offering for managing a single user identity across a heterogeneous UNIX and Windows(R) environment. VAS uses Kerberos encryption to protect sensitive user credentials, providing network and user security. Release 2.6 will include additional MMC snap-ins, cross-forest authentication, and much more.
Legend -- code-name for the next release of OpenServer -- due to ship in the 1st quarter of 2005. This development effort is the first step for SCO in supporting a single UNIX development path for both OpenServer and UnixWare. It enables us to continue to support the 32-bit Intel architecture while adding support for 64-bit advanced computing. The benefit to our customers is enhanced support for 1,000s of applications written for UNIX, Java, and the ability to connect them with Web Services. Legend continues our commitment to value, security and reliability.
"Customers value the proven reliability and security of SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer running on pervasive Intel and AMD hardware," said Jeff Hunsaker, Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCO's UNIX division. "Through today's announcements, SCO is demonstrating our long-term commitment to UNIX customers by providing significant upgrades to our flagship UNIX products. In addition, SCO is providing solutions that enhance our UNIX offerings with updates to SCOoffice Server and Vintela Authentication."
Along with new product offerings, SCO today announced several new programs for its strong UNIX reseller organization. These training and marketing programs will provide SCO resellers with the expertise and support to ensure thei
this sig intentionally left blank
Who actually uses SCO Unixware. I mean, usually any business that wants unix will go with Linux, and in some cases AIX, etc. But who actually uses SCO Unixware, besides SCO (oops, forgot that they were running Linux...)
Help Fight SPAM today!
Funny. When I went to read this article. The Add at the top of the page shows a shirless (maybe naked) guy setting behind a desk with the flashing caption Megahertz. I believe its an omen of what its like to work at SCO.
I interview earlier this year for a position with a large national autoparts chain, while talking about their systems they mentioned that a large amount of their legacy stuff was dialup to UnixWare servers. I asked them what their feelings were re: the longterm viability of SCO and what their contingency plans were if SCO were to fold. They basically said that they had been thinking of moving to Linux but had made no actual moves towards doing so and that they felt that even if SCO folded that someone else would buy the IP and continue the license. I responded that I doubted whoever bought the IP would continue to offer UnixWare but would rather buy it to be able to controll their own Unix product entirely and would drop UnixWare. They didn't seem too pleased with that assesment. Maybe that's why I didn't get the job but I would rather not have been hired on and then asked to clean up the mess in the future!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
it's called "PUMP" ... the "DUMP" coming soon to a stocks market near you.
Won't somebody please think of the Karma!
With all this fuss, it's easy to forget that SCO was orginally a software company.
Their warnings are right on the money, though. Who the hell is going to want to do business with them now? It's probably not far fetched to assume that there aren't many new SCO installations anywhere, and that the installed base is only grudgingly still doing business with them.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
After all, how can you buy something from someone who has nothing remotely current to sell? ;-)
it just makes sense that point of sale devices use a p.o.s. operating system right ?
Missing footnote:
"Due to our current ongoing lawsuits (which, admittedly, we're not so sure was a good idea in the first place anymore) SCO can only offer a limited money back guarantee of 3 days from the intial purchase date at this time.
See you in hell,
--
Darl"
Next they'll probably buy ownership of the license for dosemu which means they practically own MS-DOS which means they own the IP for Windows 9x which has a similar GUI as Windows NT based versions.... so technically they own Windows. Maybe they'll sue Microsoft and win this time.
new DIY Baseless Litigation kits by SCO in the legal form section =)
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
This almost makes me think that SCO is in with companies that are opponents of UNIX. I mean it's a perfect situation for them. They would get money from the anti-UNIX group(s) for holding their stance and from people who prefer to stick with SCO UNIX. I bet they enjoy their spot on the fence with profits coming from both sides.
At least SCO now claims to have their own products then just making claims that others have "stolen their code". It would even seem that SCO knows few believe their claims so now they have to justify it by claiming to have their own products.
I'd be interested in seeing the "response" to these products as well as the "copyright notices" on them. Perhaps they'll be so vague that anyone who thinks they can add to the SCO code will have to pay just like they are getting UNIX-friendly companies to give them a slice. Who knows, SCO might be able to keep making these claims to keep the company afloat!
erm...No thanks. I'd rather poke my eyeballs out with rusty paperclips.
Why would anyone do business with SCO after their litigious behavior this past year?
I mean, come on.. anyone
I am sure their product resellers are -pissed- and have already been working to find other distribution contracts from companies such as Novell or RH. Honestly, I think that this is a simple stunt to try and bubble their stock a bit because of the reality of 0 value on the litigation business to shareholders.
I can't imagine that anyone of real talent would want to work for SCO at this point on the engineering side.
From a UNIX teacher at my college "SCO's main product right now is litigation"
this sig intentionally left blank
They make money? They lost several million on those products last quarter
Is it conceivable that SCO is coming up with new product lines in case the judge says they do not have an IP case since they do not have any product that can use the IP.
Reading the release, it doesn't look like these announcements are major in any way, just run of the mill upgrades or versions that possibly have very few (if any) takers.
Not sure companies would want to do (new)business with such litigious companies.
in the article is that SCO is interested in being an IP company and not a products company. That would be somewhat OK is they had clear rights to any IP, but only as a static company. No one will buy new products from a company that is focused on what they DID and not what they can DO. Would you buy a 'new' vehicle that was actually a remade 1978 Chevy Monza with the same 1970s technology?
To me, UnixWare is like a horrible car accident. I don't want to look because I know it's going to be bad, but the perverted side of me just can't resist. Anyway, here's an OSNews review of a recent release of UnixWare (just in case you have a kinky side).
UnixWare 7.1.3 Review
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
Oddly enough, the article states that 'SCO's continuing Unix intellectual property lawsuits against IBM, Novell and others is apparently putting customers off.'
Well, whaddya know? Actions do have consequences, after all!
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I just went to the SCO website to see what they were advertising, and I noticed something...
Any web designers want to comment on the "turning the picture into grayscale" rollovers?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
+2...troll
No one at SCO put in "hard work" to earn the IP...they bought it. Had they actually developed everything covered by the IP, it would be a differant story.
Linux kernel 2.6.7 just came out so... :-)
how much of the new release is functionality derived from opensource projects? HMMM.
Open Source software can not be made into a profitable business model.
IBM seems to be doing OK.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Thank god, nothing says "brand-loyalty" like SCO. Please if someone in a large advertising firm is watching this, call them up and pitch them a nice 4-minute commercial during the superbowl.
+1 Funny, Hilarious, Satirical
1. Thundering Silence
2. Microsoft's legitimate patent listing
3. Military Intelligence
4. SCO's Product Line
Hmmm.
Having looked at their products, they are very impressive.
You need to look harder. They've stagnated for years now, this is like microsoft having been selling Windows 95 for the last 10 years, and only now coming out with a preview of Windows 98.
I'm glad they can impress you. Truly. And if you thought that was good, look out your window and see the dog with the fluffy tail... that's gotta make your YEAR.
Linux is not their primary business is it?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I wonder if SCO is offering Service & Support in quarterly increments? I don't know if a company wants to pay for five years of Service & Support that might terminate by next year :)
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That headline caused me to shoot coffee out of my nose, you insensitive clods!
You put way too much effort into that. I usually just wait for the "Where do you see yourself in five years?" and answer with a curt "Retired." Works every time.
Heh heh heh.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Taken from the SCO Q2 Conference Call transcript on Groklaw, could these be Darl McBride's famous last words?
Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
SCO Announces Broad Array of New Unix Products, Channel Support and Training Programs
/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced a broad array of new and enhanced UNIX products as well as new channel support and training programs. The upcoming product releases mark the largest across-the-board group of product enhancements from SCO in several years. New or enhanced UNIX products from SCO and their expected availability dates include:
LINDON, Utah, Jun 15, 2004
* UnixWare 7.1.4 (now shipping)
* Smallfoot embedded UNIX (now shipping)
* SCOoffice Server 4.1 (July 2004)
* Vintela Authentication from SCO Release 2.6 (August 2004)
* Legend -- the code name for the next release of OpenServer
(1st Quarter 2005)
* Reseller training and support programs
UnixWare 7.1.4 -- A major upgrade to the UnixWare product line, 7.1.4 includes many enhancements that continue to keep UnixWare as the most reliable, stable, scalable and affordable operating system in its class. UnixWare 7.1.4 adds support to enable UnixWare to run thousands of Java and Web Services applications.
SCOoffice Server 4.1 -- SCOoffice Server 4.1 is a reliable, full-featured Internet e-mail and collaboration solution for small and medium businesses. SCOoffice Server stops e-mail viruses, filters out junk e-mail, and secures e-mail access. Providing more than just e-mail services, SCOoffice Server also delivers a real-time collaboration solution for scheduling group meetings, sharing contact lists and folders, and managing group task lists. SCOoffice Server integrates with Microsoft(R) Outlook(R) and industry-standard e-mail readers and Web browsers.
Smallfoot -- SCO's formal entry into the embedded UNIX market, Smallfoot consists of a toolkit that is used to create the Smallfoot embedded UNIX operating system. The toolkit is a rapid development tool that allows organizations to create a small software footprint operating system (i.e., Smallfoot embedded UNIX) customized for a variety of applications including Point of Sale, gaming, hand-held and a variety of other devices.
Vintela Authentication from SCO Release 2.6 -- Vintela Authentication from SCO (VAS) is the company's offering for managing a single user identity across a heterogeneous UNIX and Windows(R) environment. VAS uses Kerberos encryption to protect sensitive user credentials, providing network and user security. Release 2.6 will include additional MMC snap-ins, cross-forest authentication, and much more.
Legend -- code-name for the next release of OpenServer -- due to ship in the 1st quarter of 2005. This development effort is the first step for SCO in supporting a single UNIX development path for both OpenServer and UnixWare. It enables us to continue to support the 32-bit Intel architecture while adding support for 64-bit advanced computing. The benefit to our customers is enhanced support for 1,000s of applications written for UNIX, Java, and the ability to connect them with Web Services. Legend continues our commitment to value, security and reliability.
"Customers value the proven reliability and security of SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer running on pervasive Intel and AMD hardware," said Jeff Hunsaker, Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCO's UNIX division. "Through today's announcements, SCO is demonstrating our long-term commitment to UNIX customers by providing significant upgrades to our flagship UNIX products. In addition, SCO is providing solutions that enhance our UNIX offerings with updates to SCOoffice Server and Vintela Authentication."
Along with new product offerings, SCO today announced several new programs for its strong UNIX reseller organization. These training and marketing programs will provide SCO resellers with the expertise and support to ensure thei
This might just be troll feeding, but what the heck.
/. community has maligned this legitimate, above the boards company just for trying to get restitution for code that they really did buy.
/.) seems to think SCO has nothing.
The truth is that the
(1) I believe the jury is still out on their claims. I don't know what inside information you might have but nearly everyone covering this case (not just
(2) Above the boards? With all the dirty legal tricks, stalling, and blatantly obvious stock scams they have been pulling I don't know if "above the boards" accurately describes them.
So they don't want to give their hard earned IP away.
So was it hard earned or did they buy it? (or, like nearly every other pundit, IP lawyer, company, etc believes, do they not actually have a claim on what they are suing over)
Sorry, but stuff that IBM developed INDEPENDENTLY of SCO is not SCO's hard earned property, and it looks very obviously like the case is going to be decided that way.
Look at the companies that have tried to make profit off linix.
Yeah, IBM is really hurting. So is Cisco/Linksys. Not to mention all the companies who use Linux to solve a problem. So what if it is hard to sell, nobody owns it, nobody has to sell it. And I don't know where you get that Redhat is floundering, they seem to be doing just fine. Operating Systems are becoming a commodity. Where it is written that a company has to be selling Linux for it to be successful? It seemed to grow just fine on it's own without corporate backing. Granted corporate backing has helped it quite a bit lately, but it is not like it was in danger of dying without it.
Yeah and Im sure all the visitors of Slashdot will read the front page, and then frantically grab the phone to call their local vendor to order UnixWare.
Right.
Linux Lawsuit?
IBM Cease and Desist Investigation?
Redhat Repo?
Autozone Demolition Derby Arena?
Novell "You THOUGHT you owned UNIX" Naysaying?
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
The editors don't need to allow them to make their case. They are making it in a court of law, and badly from what I've read.
N/T :)
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
The truth is that the /. community has maligned this legitimate, above the boards company just for trying to get restitution for code that they really did buy.
www.groklaw.net.
Since the commentary there will be no more to your liking than the commentary here; just read the court filings. SCO has done everything possible to obfuscate and delay the case as long as possible. A legitimate company with a legitimate grievance would have worked with the kernel team to mitigate their harm. As it is, they're trying make the kernel devs their unpaid slaves by leveling accusations without details. In this way, they can claim ownership of what they allegedly own as well as what is undisputably the original work of the kernel developers. NO ONE is obligated to pay SCO for that work.
Paying SCO $699 or whatever it is does not compensate the kernel devs...some of whom are employed by deep pocketed corps who will insist on their full GPL rights. Nope, SCO is going to have to publically identify with specificity what allegedly infringes so it can be removed from the kernel. It does not help that SCO also appears to be trying to appropriate the POSIX standards. The POSIX standards are NOT the property of SCO. SCO has no right to automatically expect tribute from anyone who implements them.
They will also have to do something about their bizarre theories of what is a derivative work before they will get any sympathy whatsoever.
Your "legitimate above board business" is trying to commit a much larger theft then the one they are accusing others of. Being a business does not give you the right to steal no matter how money you think it will make you.
Does SCO still consider lawsuits to be part of their ongoing product line?
After all, they've paid their lawyers, et alia in stock, implying they either believe their stock will go up (highly unlikely) or they'll be bought out to shut them down (more likely).
its even better, guess who will probably be blamed for the DDoS attack that is happening while this is on the /. main page.
When I clicked on the link pointing to the sco site mentioned in the post, the browser said
The server's certificate did not match its hostname. Accept?
www.sco.com
While I was thinking as to whether or not to accept it wondering about the $699 for my linux system, the browser continued loading the page without any problem even before I accepted it.
Is it some clever *coding* on SCO's part or a problem with Opera!?
Now!! Whom should I sue!?!
(OK!! I'm willing to spare the 699 bucks for the higher returns)
Baseless Accusations v1.01
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt v9.421 (previously acquired from Microsoft)
Lack of Evidence v2.2
No sig.
Linux is not their primary source of income, fucking teabagger. Cisco puts Linux in some of its routers because it's free but they could just as well put QNX or even Windows ME for that matter and charge the end users a little more.
As for IBM, do you think they make $80Bn by selling Linux. More like $0. By putting Linux on their machines, they lower the prices of their servers by $1000 or more (depending mostly on the number of processors), but sell even more services, which is their real product anyway, because people need to upgrade Linux all the time. Also, Linux is becoming attractive to costumers because it's often in the news and also a lot of people of learning how to use it (unlike AIX).
"SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms."
This guy is way out there
Oddly enough, the article states that 'SCO's continuing Unix intellectual property lawsuits against IBM, Novell and others is apparently putting customers off.' I wonder how that could have happened?
The RIAA and the MPAA would be wise to learn something from the lesson of SCO. Perhaps they will be shrewd enough to do so....let us see.
Today's news of SCO's new product line up isn't even enough to help their stock.
Does anyone find the top five reasons to choose Unix over Linux as listed on the SCO page incredibly funny? Especially item number 5.
#1 SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
#2 SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor
#3 SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
#4 SCO UNIX® is Secure
#5 SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
7.1.4 now comes with 27% more lawsuit!
More seriously: can it be audited to insure it doesn't contain GPL'd technology?
I think the problem that SCO will have for many years boils down to:
Do I want to risk doing business with them?
If SCO had just gone out after IBM for copyright infringement, fine - I don't think that the average manager would care.
The problem is that they turned around and sued former customers (not that they had a choice - to sue people they hadn't had relations with might have opened them up to fraud lawsuits. Then again, they could have chosen not to sue at all.)
As a recent article pointed out, people now thinking about going to SCO must be thinking "If I ever leave them, will they sue me after? Can I afford that?"
Current Unixware customers will probably stay on, since it's easier and cheaper to do that than not to. But I will find it surprising if they drum up more then a dribble of new business with their karma approaching sub-basement levels.
In reality, as most people here probably obverve, they've shot themselves in the foot. If they had stuck with IBM, then resolved that, then (assuming they win, which I find rather remote) tried to go after regular Linux users, they might have done very well. And if they lost, well, they'd still have Unixware to sell.
Now, people are going to look at them like a rabid dog with a broken leg. Even if you want to help it, you're worried about how much damage you'll recieve in the process.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
That's a Novell Linux ad, I might note, if that lends any more credibility to the omen. ;-)
(My favorite Novell Linux ad has got to be the one about Worm: What a butterfly really is without the pretty wings. [you can see the MSN butterfly in the background just after all the servers crash in the ad.])
For instance, if you bought a new or upgraded a system, they would use that purchase as evidence for a lawsuit should you ever choose to migrate to another *nix.
Likewise, if you bought into their protection scheme you would significantly increase your exposure to lawsuits from all sides. This is not only true because you explicitly agree that SCO is the sole arbitrator of what can and cannot be done with GNU/Linux software, but also because such an agreement may make the use of such software a violation of the GPL. It is really a recursive problem in which you are exposed to lawsuit no matter who wins.
So, I really can't see anyone doing any business with this company. Ever.
Of course firms routinely buy software from companies that spy on and attack customers, so this may be the new model of the new economy!
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't know where I read it, but somewhere I read that a Gartner report claimed IBM had around 32 percent of the Linux market share for full systems. While that may not be their primary business, it ain't small potatos either.
IGNORE SCO. They're full of shit. Just ignore them... they thrive off publicity. Slashdot attention makes them look legitimate, and concerns technical people. When they see 500+ comments in these articles, people think there's an issue... there is no issue.
Must... resist... joke...
Let's see...
Senator Orin Hatch, primarily responsible for DMCA, Patriot Act (he had it written before 9/11) and lots of other very evil legislation.
Senator Bob Bennet, perhaps more benign, but the sort of cluelessness where he claims to be a giant of tech. He takes credit for a lion's share of the drive behind convincing the government to lean on private industry with the Y2K silliness, to the effect of a hundred of billion dollar or more wasted. Then is suprised that tech later had less money to spend on legitimate projects.
Hundreds of thousands of Mormons arguing for a constitutional ammendment that is so religiously based that it also makes the marriage practices of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., which are still vigorously defended if not practiced by Mormons unconstitutional (is this an uninteended consequence? all there were previously were court rulings).
The Utah Republican Party campaigning to defeat a popular referendum (popular in Utah where the majority is Republican) to regulate and tax the absolute worst forms of dumping of toxic wastes in Utah (also represented by Hatch's Son, like SCO).
The list goes on and on [...]
and blatantly obvious stock scams they have been pulling
well if you are going to call him out on the fact that "The jury is still out" in regards to their IP claims, then I'll call you out on the stock scams.
I havn't seen anything from the SEC saying that the execs of SCO are practicing illegal trading. They might be, it looks like they are, but that has yet to be officially determined.
Lawyer v2.0
No such thing as bad publicity, if we are going to stop these people slashdot should not post stories covering their saleable goods. On such a high traffic site like this, it may actually net them a sale.
1. FUD on a stick
2. Bogus law suits in a box. (Discounts given to existing customers.)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Damnit! And I just bought 20 $699 SCO Linux licenses to replace our existing SCO UNIX infrastructure!
Give this man some points.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
"UnixWare 7.1.4 -- A major upgrade to the UnixWare product line, 7.1.4 includes many enhancements that continue to keep UnixWare as the most reliable, stable, scalable and affordable operating system in its class."
;)
Now, I must say.. I agree with that totally! Finally, SCO Understands.
UnixWare is SO SHITTY that it's in a class all to itself.. nothing else is even close. As far as ultra-shitty operating systems go... it's the most reliable, stable, scalable, and affordable.
In case you're looking for a job, you can work for a high quality company. Here are some of our openings:
Accounts Payable Accountant 26 May 2004
(to many bills, not enough income)
Senior Software Engineer 13 Jan 2004
(location: New Delhi, India)
Inside Sales Manager 09 Jan 2004
(we don't have Outside Sales Managers because nobody outside our company uses our products)
View Details Online
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
I mean, honestly, who would buy anything from a Slimy Corporate Oriface?
I don't think it's so much as advertising, but irony. Don'tcha think?
I almost forgot that SCO existed again. Then, you slashdot people had to post another story!
Can't we just let SCO slip into oblivion? Don't ruin it for me!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Hey Darl. Didn't know you were here. /. for publishing the content of your message?
Not a subscriber? Here, using this open source-based site, trying to get something for free? Or are you getting ready to sue
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
Let's say that you have 10 customers now and then next month you grow to 20. You can then proudly exclain that: "(Y)Our sales have doubled!"
Get it?Fuck off.
the subject says it all.
I said they defended it and believed it was a correct principle when it was taught and practiced by Mormon leaders and the discontinuance was only a capitulation to the rulings of the courts, and it is still an important part of their doctrine. As anyone knows, Mormons who practice it at this time get excommunicated and join splinter groups.
Linux is not their primary source of income, fucking teabagger.
I never claimed that it was their primary source of income, how silly of you to think I had. You must be awfully embarrassed.
What I DID mention was that they were making money off of it. Obviously Linux is a helping many companies either directly or indirectly and those companies are helping by supporting it (like IBM with a ton of money and hiring) or just by feeding back code to the community.
So why does everyone get their panties in a knot when they shout out "there hasn't been any successful company selling only linux!". Who said their had to be? What makes you think Linux can only succeed if someone can make money selling it?
It's open source people, the same market rules that apply to commercial software do NOT apply to it. Why is this so hard for people to understand. Right now many open source programmers are making a good living AND contributing to open source projects (either as part of their job or on the side). Sure not all of them are but then not every crappy commercial VB coder has income right now either. Linux and Cox don't seem to be in any immediate danger of starving, The Linux Kernel seems to be progressing nicely and commercial and non commercial distros alike are enjoying success. So where is the problem?
Finkployd
well if you are going to call him out on the fact that "The jury is still out" in regards to their IP claims, then I'll call you out on the stock scams.
Fair enough.
I would submit though that there seem to be more people "in the know" questioning their stock ploys (Motley Fool, other market/industry publications. I'll dig up links if you really want me to) than seriously entertaining the idea that they might have a legit IP claim. Their actions simply do not indicate a company that has a strong case. Nor do the actions of their insiders inspire a large amount of confidence in the future of their company.
Finkployd
According to my ISP, www.sco.com is stil meself 127.0.0.1
Wonder when they will change DNS back. But nice to be associated with SCO even on a Winnie machine.
By coincidence I wisited their homepage yesterday, just to see who actually resells SCO nowadays (the list is impessivly short).
(Im in the middle of moving a client away from a SCO solution)
In USA, there where no resellers listed, just corporate HQ, and 2 branchoffices.
In Germany and UK I belive it was 3, Sweden and Finland one, Africa one, middle-east one (Isreael)
I didnt check all of them, but those I did check was not actually involved in SCO anymore, when I called them theyy got slightly embarresed to be connected to SCO, and told me that they recomended me to convert to Solaris or RedHat, depending on workload (wich they offered to help me with). They blamed SCO that they where still listed, they had terminated all connections some 4 month and 8 month agp
Linux and Cox don't seem to be in any immediate danger of starving
s/Linux/Linus
Slashdot really needs some kind of preview function so this kind of thing doesn't keep happening to me.
Was it just me or the ad on this page for Novell/SUSE linux?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Could SCO be releasing all these products at once knowing full well they won't sell well? Thus demonstrating to the court how their business has been hurt by Linux/Novell's "Slander"? Could this all just be a strategy on the part of their Legal team? Seems funny that all these products had signifigant updates all at once.
how can you say a company has a right to profit from its 'IP' that it does not even own (Novel ..)
Hmmm. This part wasn't in the story. I wasn't aware SCO made any money, let alone employed any coders (though probibly all their code comes from off-shore, these days).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
As a list of items, I chose things of which there is public knowledge. This is a comment, not a documentary, but I am happy to look up what public references may be avaialble to back up any of the statements with factual references if you stake out a position by disagreeing, or if you even ask, out of interest where you can find more information. A single thread is hardly a place to pursue a list of things in parallel.
But the general claim that such a list is inherently a flaimbait without discussing what you feel may be non-factual is silly and even contradicts your signature line.
But you will clearly succeed in swaying the set of mods who are only using it to disagree without having to thoughtfully disagree.
You would be well advised to know that polygamy was abandoned by the Mormons when Utah was admitted to the U.S. as a state in 1895.
I don't have a problem with your views on the two senators from that state but the items listed about the Mormons are incorrect. I am sure there are a few small minorites who still wed multiple spouses, however it hasn't been church doctrine since 1895. That comparison you made would be like saying "(All) Catholic priests molest young boys.", which simply isn't true.
As for your comment on ``...a constitutional ammendment that is so religiously based...'' there are plenty of laws that are imposed by a religious majority on the public. The ``blue'' laws in the south for instance.
The Mormon Church clearly has ownership on that title. "South Park" did the best job explaining this in #712 "All About the Mormons?". Scary thing is that they really beleive that crap.
"I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent". - Arthur C. Clarke
But for a Mormon to make the particular argument, seems a little like a Saudi wanting to hold foreign infidels responsible for the unequal treatment of women or American's invasion of Iraq supposedly to eliminate the evils of Sadaam, WDM, and terrorism while relaxing (a generous interpretation) rules on torturing captives, imprisoning thousands of innocents with no recourse, supporting Pakistan the greatest nuclear WMD exporter and a significant exporter of terrorism.
If you request URLs supporting these issues, I will provide them.
OK, now I know what you're talking about. However, somebody else replied with the text, and the quote is "between a man and a woman," which does not seem to imply that there is any limit on the number of unions, deemed "marriage", that may take place. Even left as you have it above, "between one man and one woman" does not exclude the possibility of multiple marriages. However, it might be ambiguous enough to require a trip through the court system before it gets fully interpreted.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
"There's still some money to be eked out of its installed base, but SCO has made it very clear that they don't want to be a products company," Haff said. "It shouldn't surprise them that their customers are jumping ship."
You might have noticed that they are sueing customers for jumping ship! Doe it really matter if it is Linux, BSD, Solaris, or Windows? There claim is that Autozone took libs or was it just knowleage from sco unix? They could claim the same for any OS you port to.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
queue the SCO = POS jokes
Has anyone else tried clicking on the related topics on the right hand side of the page e.g. company profile?
It takes me straight to Micro$oft's home page!!! What's going on here? I am running FireFox 0.9 on a Mac. I notice that the link switched to is http://http//www.sco.com/company/profile.html. Even stranger, why does this take me to Micro$oft? Is someone at Mozilla playing a joke?
I'm confused!
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
I've used SCO openserver before, it was on some servers that were brought into the computer repair class.
it sucked.. majorly, though one redeeming feature is that they had X11 automatically run when you went into tty2, and console mode in tty1
interesting, but useless.
Nobody's asking them to give their code away, nobody wants it. They want SCO to stop claiming they own the independently-developed Linux code that IBM brought features to, the same as they brought JFS, NUMA, etc. to AIX from their other OS'.
SCO's business is floundering, and they've stooped to nuisance suits against a deep-pocketed IBM claiming they own AIX/Dynix, thinking they'd be bought out, but instead have drawn the attention of the Pinstripe Nazgul onto themselves. The end result is likely to be a smoking crater in Lindon where once stood SCO. And the rest of us will bring marshmallows.
Otherwise your position is as meritless as SCO's own.
licet differant, aequabitur
Please dear people at SCO give as a Unix Kernel Personality which works on Linux so we can migrate away from this legacy OS
``it is still an important part of their doctrine'' That's like saying slavery is an important part of U.S. law. It's not. :-)
The truth is that the /. community has maligned this legitimate, above the boards company just for trying to get restitution for code that they really did buy.
Nice try Darl... I mean, Doug.
SCO sells stuff too?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
An O/S platform becomes irrelevant if there's no business apps written by ISVs for it. Sure there's lots of legacy apps still in place that run on their two variants, but who in their right mind would be developing any *new* real-worl business apps ($$$) for either of SCO's O/S platforms? That would make as much sense as developing new business apps for BeOS or OS/2. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear of drop-dead, abruptly ceased end-of-life & support for Unixware and OpenServer by all the big name databases such as Oracle, Sybase, Informix and DB2, especially the latter two :-)
Ah ... that's not a Smallfoot, that's Novell's foot. And we all know where it's embedded.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Security Error: Domain Name Mismatch
You have attempted to establish a connection with "sco.com".
However, the security certificate presented belongs to
"www.sco.com". It is possible, though unlikely, that someone may
be trying to intercept your communication with this web site.
If you suspect the certificate shown does not belong to "sco.com",
please cancel the connection and notify the site administrator.
SHA1 Fingerprint FC:40:22:46:B3:84:28:27:69:46:A3:28:ED:97:77:70:AC :EB:B2:58
MD5 Fingerprint 66:94:3F:3D:94:64:95:D4:45:73:43:24:A2:18:EC:4E
on a side note, in case you're looking to invest , you might try talking to this poor guy:
Investor Relations Contact:
Randy Richards
(801)932-5424
... you might want to look at this post by the same author.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
People running Unixware now have already spent the money - the licence isn't a yearly renewal - you buy it and you're done.
The only money to be made from Unixware is new user licences (that hardly anyone will buy into anymore - charging per user is not palletable today) and new installations.
The MPAA has control over most of the movies shown in the USA, while the RIAA has substantial control over sales outlets and exclusivity (almost) in radio. SCO has no such leverage in any of its markets. SCO has competitors in its markets, so that customers have relatively easy options to go elsewhere. While there are lots of non-RIAA artists, most people probably won't hear them; for the music they do hear, the RIAA is the only source.
The RIAA has a much bigger hammer than SCO (in controlling its market) and more money to buy legislation amenable to them (e.g., DMCA, the "PIRATE Act", etc.) - they just need to scare people away from copying their product so that they can go back to their original model of screwing their customers by colluding on price and controlling distribution so that they can control their artists. I don't know, but are movies shown which are represented by organizations other than the MPAA? For these businesses, suing their customers is a necessary evil so that they can return to more subtle ways of hosing their customers. For the RIAA to alter its business practices towards openness and away from customer antagonism is contrary to a century of business practice, and won't happen. In addition, unlike SCO, the movie and music industries are still making money (just not as much as they would like), so they can afford to annoy their customers (for the moment). SCO has not much chance at surviving if (once) their suits fail - they are cutting their own lifeline while hanging over a cliff.
The only lessons that other businesses will take from SCO's fate is to make sure their customers are suitably constrained before they screw them.
Open Source software can not be made into a profitable business model.
Probably not, if you stick with conventional methods. But then again, will the conventional methods remain viable?
Microsoft has discovered that people are becoming less and less willing to continually pay for upgrades to their operating system every couple of years or so.
Why are so many businesses interested in Intellectual Property? Because the conventional methods of keeping the cash rollin' in are not doing the business.
Look at how Microsoft has to continually charge for upgrades to its operating system to maintain its cash flow. Most of the time Microsoft has been adding 'features' to make people think they're getting a good deal (not necessarily because people would benefit from them). Many of these 'features' are the reason why there's so many security issues.
There's more than one way to make money, any you don't have to screw end-users to make it.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Your quote was accurate, but your characterization of what I said was wrong. Stick with the quote. Substitute "even if" for "if", and I think it is obvious that I did not say they practiced it. Even if they do not practice it, they vigorously defend it. Adding "Even" is not a negation, but only a more-explicit way of saying it.
Clearly their defense of it is as a doctrine for Mormons, not for permitting others to practice it. In fact, most Mormons tend to strongly object to the practice of polygamy by non-Mormons in Utah. That is where the hypocricy lies, in the religious intolerance that even precludes their own doctrine, the proposed ammendment only underscoring the hypocricy.
The point was hypocricy in Utah, and that is just another sore point because it is true.
this comes questionably close to the release of the 2.6.7 Linux Kernel.
If the slave laws were still on the books, and the government still said it was a valid practice that just happened to be outlawed in the states but that might be reinstated at any time it becomes feasible, then I would agree with you that the comparison was valid.
I believe that at no time has the Mormon church condemned the prior acts by their leadership as evil nor discredited the doctrine, nor ruled it out for the future, but they still perform polygamous marriages that are expected to be valid and plural in the next life and they permit preexisting polygamous marriages of former muslim converts to continue in some places where it is legal. If you read the announcement discontinuing it, it was only a prohibition due to the law of the land. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.
Who give's a shit.
He is our new Mormon overlord!
How will SCO make money? See below to find out: 0. Claim you acquired everything. 1. ?????? 2. ?????? 3. Profit? 4. Sue lots and lots of people. 5. Profit!
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
What an appropriate name for their next version. It will probably become a legend before it is released.
I mean really would anybody buy a new server with their crap on it when there is aix, solaris, and linux.
I know maybe McDonald's in Germany will buy it - oh no nevermind.
How could they deny you a spouse life insurance policy.
I read about a man who took out an insurance policy on his goldfish, and the insurance company, after realizing it after they had paid the claim, was laughed out of court when they tried to get their money back, because the man had filled out the form completely truthfully, including height, weight, etc. and they had no evidence of foul play in the insured's demise, although they strongly suspected it :-)
And with any luck, IBM can take down all of Canopy instead of just the burned out shell of SCO. I'm sure Canopy designed the whole scenario so they can loot SCO's assets and leave nothing behind when IBM comes to collect on the countersuits. If Canopy involvement in the whole bogus lawsuit/stock pumping scheme can be proven, these bunch of scumbags might be put out of business for good.
I believe most current SCO customers are looking for alternatives, as we saw last week when it was announced that McDonalds was considering moving to SUSE Linux for their German division (probably soon to be followed by other divisions as well). Companies don't want to be stuck with an unsupported OS on crucial systems, and it doesn't take a business analyst to conclude that SCO will not be around much longer.
As for resellers, I've seen interviews with SCO resellers in which they say they haven't really sold any SCO products for years and don't count on SCO for any significant portion of their income. I think this says a lot about SCO's prospects for any new customers.
It does not seem to have been discredited to many Mormons.
The catholic church is more credible on pedophilia because they denounce it in every way, they do not leave any room, let alone declare, that they will resume it in the future or do it in heaven and that former practicers of it were great, moral people.
You have a long way to go to establish that it is not still a doctrine of the Mormon Church. I have seen no evidence. Many institutions have doctrines that they do not practice officially or directly encourage people to do only because they are illegal. I believe that it will be obvious if the doctrine of Polygamy is ever reduced to heresy in the Mormon Church.
I would observe the same of inconsistency between John Kerry, who favors abortion, and the Catholic Church, which opposes it, but in this case, everyone is aware of the disagreement, and it is not a stand being pursued in a religious fervor. It is not enough to say that since the Church does not condone bombing abortion clinics and go along with the laws they have abandoned their anti-abortion stance.
I am Libertarian in my thinking. Why on earth does the government have to be involved in defining what marriage is in the first place. If it was such a bad thing for early Mormons to have so much hate focused on them for having an alternative definition, why is it now a good thing to turn over to the Federal Government. Certainly not because we can trust them more today.
That is the great hypocricy, and it didn't need the ammendment to show the great intolerance by many Mormons in Utah. It is one thing to say "my religion defines this as a sin", it is quite another to say we are going to prevent any other sort of unorthadox family committment between adults. Are married practicing homosexuals really worse than unmarried practicing homosexuals or heterosexuals who believe in free sex, which is not unconstitutional, and should the Federal Government be suddenly getting involved in the definition of marriage to favor current Mormon fashion of the day?
"They're seeing that people don't know who they are, and if they don't know who they are, they're not buying from them,"
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Because the current product doesn't include linux kernel code. SCO needed to update their OS so that it includes linux kernel code so they can then claim that linux is STILL violating their IP because, "See? There is still SCO code in even the newest linux kernels!".
They have to try to maintain their sole source of income of late (stupid companies that cave and pay for their bogus license to run linux).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I am guessing that this isn't good enough for you to see that the Church discredits polygamy. From the mouth of President Hinkley in the magazine Ensign, Nov. 1998, 70.
"More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.
Link to article
Their new update is the 2.6 kernel.
Let's push the number of comments to 666!
while the RIAA's methods are draconian and amplified by their own evil, suing those who took something from them is appropriate. SCO is not only asserting ownership of something they don't own, but attepting to compel payment from people from whom it is not due (infringement doesn't transmit to legitimate purchasers of products containing SCO "IP", but only to those who sold the products and used the "IP" illegally). SCO's claims are (likely) baseless, and they have chosen evil methods to pursue those claims.
This IBM thing is interesting. For quite a while I have been considering how it is possible that companies make money out of open source. The only answer I have been able to find (apart from the beggarware approach) is that they sell something else and that the open source stuff is an extra.
IBM sells solutions ie hardware + installation + support.
Red Hat sells support.
Suse sells support.
Mandrake sells support.
I do not believe there is a viable business model is making your core product open source. Hence 90% of the code I write will not be open sourced. This is not a decision that is forced upon me by someone else, this is my decision. The 10% comes from a desire to give back to the community.
meh
Every DC and Kia dealership had an IBM Netfinity server running UnixWare. This system was part of the DIAL network, which kept track of repairs, warantees, inventory, and recalls.
In 2003, this system was phased out and replaced by a web application, but I happen to know that some dealerships still have the system running in order to access legacy data that's not covered by the new system.
Oh, and if you happen to run across one of these Netfinity servers, the user passwords are in the three-ring binder marked "DIAL/IBM Netfinity". For example, user "dialadm" password is "omaha97".
These systems were $14K new, though eBay has some for ~$500 (triple-redundant power supplies, hot-swappable HD, single CPU, 512M RAM).
(An anonymous Chrysler/Kia admin)
Isn't Linux license selling works?
Read journal when you are not understand
And download 2-3 songs from Limewire to see if the new CD is any good before shelling out 15 bucks. Online services are cool, but I still can't preview full songs without paying a monthly subscription. Maybe one of these days they'll get it.
No, seriously, folks, take a look at SCO's "Five Reasons to Choose Unix Instead Of Linux.
1. SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Translation: It's Unix. This differentiates us from Linux because... uhh... our system starts with 'U'?
2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Translation: Vendor lock-in comes at no extra charge! We're your Single Point Of Failure(TM), so you better hope we don't go under. Don't worry, we've never been better. *cough*lying*cough*
3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Translation: We WILL release stuff unfinished if our marketing guys tell us to. Quality is Job NONE!
4. SCO UNIX® is Secure
Translation: We now have less marketshare than BeOS. Evildoers leave us alone because we're obviously self-destructing - we push OURSELVES off the cliff into obscurity and humiliation.
5. SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
Translation: We promise not to sue ourselves - unless we get really desperate.
Many Thanks to BFG9000's SCO Marketspeak to English Dictionary, without which this could not have been possible.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Lemme see...
SCO Unix (and OpenServer) is derived from
SCO XENIX 3.0 (Feb 84) and
XENIX OS (Aug 25, 1980) and
Unix System V and
UNIX Time-Sharing System (TSS) Seventh Edition (Jan 1979).
Get a load of this...
Linux 2.2.16 (June 7, 2000)
went into UnixWare NSC 7.1.1+LKP (August 21, 2000)
Linux 2.4.0test8 (Sept 8, 2000)
went into UnixWare 7.1.1DCFS (nov 27, 2000)
So, my take is, for the SCO PR machine to even remotely use the word "Linux", makes this an instant (and potential) fraudulent case of which Linux can pursue.
SCO intent is probably really is closer to GNU-part than it is with Linux-part (GNU/Linux?)
Good luck...
Perhaps the issue is too complex for you or your system of beliefs.
The quote does not claim that what went before was wrong, but the Mormon doctrine still affirms that it was right. Your quote lacks any discreditation or condemnation. All it would have to say was "these teachings of the early leaders were wrong, and no one, Mormon leaders included, ever had a right to variant definitions of mariage even if they believe it is a good and justified thing to make such vows of fidelity and call them mariage". If Hinckley decides to make that proclamation, I am sure it will not be vague, and it would clear things up.
I am not condemning the prior teachings of polygamous Mormon leaders, and neither does Hinckley. I am pointing out the hypocricy in Utahns with a purported religion that still on the one hand clings to the interpretation of religious suffering and persecution in the name of Mormonism of prior leaders and members due to polygamy, and on the other hand believes in legislating religious definitions at the federal constitutional level and many others that would, in fact, condemn these same leaders and new targets of persecution today.
One century, the great leaders denounce the opposition to polygamy as religious persecution and unconstitutional and the next, these Utah Mormons are the ones wanting to place such restrictions into the constitution.
Perhaps the issue is too complex for you or your system of beliefs.
That's a nice way to start this post off, but the fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with my beliefs nor the complexity of the issue rather with the fact that I enjoy arguing.
Let's boil this whole polygamy/homosexuality issue down from the perspecitve of a Mormon. 1. God has always said that homosexuality is bad , and 2. Sometimes polygamy is OK.
You can see that in the Bible at times polygamy was good, and sometimes bad. In the Book of Mormon it was bad because God did not want those people to turn out like the ones in Jerusalem , and in modern days it has been both. It was OK up until the revelation that Wilford Woodruff recieved where God once again said that polygamy was bad.
If God changes his mind, so be it, since he is the supreme being he has that right. I will agree that if that God changes his mind doesn't necessarily make prior doctrine completely discredited or condemed, but the question then arises as to why was it changed. The point I was trying to make was that at the time polygamy was OK, but since Oct 6 1890 polygamy was against the will of God, and thus from that date forward it is now discredited and condemend, if it were not so then it would still be in practice by the Church.
The issue here is that Mormons have never belived that homosexuality was OK, even when they were practicing polygamy. To them marriage has always been sanctioned between a man and a woman (or a man and some women during the polygamy days). It would be hypocrital of them to at one time say that homosexuality was ok and to now change their mind, but that is not the case. Yes it is hypocitical of them to, as you view it, persecute others while being persecuted themselves, but that is only a small part of what you have been arguing.
You point about polygamist from Africa being allowed in the Church was also incorrect, as in that quote by President Hinckley it is very clear that that has not happend. Since you still believe that polygamy is taught in the Church, I challange you to find me somewhere in an LDS book, magazine or talk since 1890 where that is the case. I know you will bring something up about the Temple ceremony but, once again to my knowledge, no where as any Church leader said anything about this. This would be a good place to search through offical church literature. Anything you find outside of offical literature is not credable.
Should the world because Mormons are no longer able to take the heat, now start persecuting those who practice polygamy and define marriage in the Catholic / Protestant -- a man and a woman -- manner to ensure persecution of others as the Mormons have been persecuted in the past? To advocate such laws and actions seems complete hypocricy, without homosexuality entering into the discussion at all.
I saw news a number of years ago, citing an authority of the Mormon church that the Church was indeed accepting polygamists in Africa, just not permitting them to continue to add wives. It does not seem strange that this should have been true, although I do not expect you to take my word for it. If the leadership could not stand the heat again and now advocate divorce for prospective members rather than a continuation of the committment of marriage that they legally and morally entered, I am not suprised. You have not presented evidence that this was never the case.
With respect to homosexuality, thinking it is unacceptable (just as others thought polygamy was unacceptable) is a long ways from justifying a constitutional ammendment. Serious committment, even in a homosexual relationship, may be much preferred by a rational government and a rational Mormon to no committment at all and Federal control over the religious definition of marriage. What if they change their mind again? What if we made it illegal for blacks to marry just because they were not permitted to marry for many years in the Mormon temples? It is a huge population with committed couples to say they should not be permitted to marry, although I suspect the slavers in the south would have been just as happy if they were never permitted to marry and instead were subjects of breeding.