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?"
"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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
Does this mean they actually have developers? Or did they just up the product version number?
;-)
We'll never know. It's not like anyone is going to *buy* these products.
Imagine the frustration their developers feel when they put out these products. I can picture an atmosphere of laconic, sarcastic apathy regarding the theoretical users (not that this wouldn't apply to many legitimate sw companies as well
These products were probably roadmapped before hitting rock bottom was inevitable, and the management has no heart to call it quits. Kicking out all the developers before the trial wouldn't look good to the judges - they are probably still trying to give an appearance of a honest-hard working little company whose IP was stolen.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
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.
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.
While saying any business that wants to use a *nix goes with Linux might be a nice dream, it's not the reality. Many IT shops are going to buy their *nix with the hardware from a sole supplier. I have plenty of *nix here but not a drop of Linux. What is really nice is that a lot of these tradtional vendors are starting to install Linux on their hardware. It's a great inroad into these shops but old stodgey IT Managers are going to stay with something old, troed, and true like AIX, HP-UX, or Solaris.
> 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.
And that day isn't today because...?
Chris Mattern
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).
That's not true. Slashdot posts UnixWare product information at no charge to SCO, to whit this very article.
That's funny, but how about trying the other way? Like linking SCO to something informative.
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
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've been buying only CDs who aren't covered by the stupid copy protection. As soon as there are no more of this I'll stop buying it....
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.
There seem to be two schools of thought regarding acceptance and compliance with the GPL.
One school says that public statements rejecting the GPL mean that one doesn't accept it in the legal sense. Making such a statement and then distributing GPL product is automatically violating the GPL. Fyodor seems to belong to this camp.
The opinion on the matter is actions are the only thing that matter. One could publically diss the GPL as long as the actual obligations regarding the providing of the source and license are respected. This seems to be the Samba Team's position.
I'll also point out that SCO has done more than publically disparage the GPL. They have asserted that the GPL is null and void several times in a court of law. That is much stronger mojo than mere press conference lip flapping. Fyodor may have a point.
They may also have imposed conditions the GPL doesn't permit on code distributed from their FTP site. This screws them under either theory of GPL acceptance. IBM for one is hanging them for this in their counterclaims.
Is anybody here an AL?
no modders are from utah?
And there are some people that wonder why I, as a Mormon, would never live in Utah...
Seriously though, I think Orin Hatch is the Harry Reid of Utah. He pulls out his "I'm a Mormon" card every election to cruise back into office, regardless of the poor job being done. He, like Reid, will pay a little lip service to what church members want to hear, and then go and promote socialism/fascism, which we have been taught to vigorously oppose by MULTIPLE prophets.
I personally find the idea of amending the United States Constitution to define marriage to be appalling at best. Sure, let's hand over to the feds one more of the shrinking pool of powers that the states actually hold on to. If you want marriage defined, take Nevada's lead and go amend your OWN state constitution.
I really get sick of how in the dark members of my church can be on politics.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
My guess is that SCO does not employ developers, and that product "updates" come from some sweat shop in India.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The problem with this comparison is the fact that Catholics never have advocated pedophilia. They were never coerced into giving this up as a practice. This has always been classified as a sin for them. This is in stark contrast to polygamy and Mormons.
A Mormon polygamist is nothing like a priest pedophile. They are reactionaries. They are far
more like the Amish: holding onto old ways.
If you want to draw strained comparisons at least be honest and compare polygamy to the execution of those who would dare to translate the Bible into English.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
But they put a set of guidelines in place that practically guarantees such behavior will occur in a non-negligable portion of their priests.
That's completely absurd. It was only a handful of priests who committed that sin. The problem was that, on the advice of psychologists, the church leaders in America failed to handle the situation properly, putting those same predators back in positions with access to young boys.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
One of the major problems with your argument is that you have not even begun to attempt to provide anything more than a rant. Your entire point may be summed up as "I don't like Christians," or fundamentalists, if you prefer.
When you refer to relgions as something "invented," you make your personal biases quite obvious. After all, why would you make such an impassioned reply in a thread that is supposed to be dealing with the SCO, of all things, if you did not have a lot of emotion invested in this matter? The SCO does evoke strong feelings in many, but they generally involve Linux and OSS. There is no crime in having feelings, but it is hard to take your argument seriously when you accuse a group of people blindly bashing other beliefs by doing exactly the same thing.
To call Mormons good Christians requires a complete lack of understanding of what a Christian is. I understand that you use the word to mean a generally kind and nice person, but that is simply the same thing as saying "someone I like," (as C.S Lewis pointed out in the introduction to Mere Christianity). One might consider letting Christians define themselves. To a believer, a Christian is one who has commited his life to God and has received forgiveness through Jesus' sacrifice. Unfortunately, these people do not cease to be human, and more often than not, they mess up a lot.
As someone who would likely be labeled as a fundamentalist, allow me to address a few of your other accusations.
1. One who follows true Christian principles (as laid out in the Bible) doesn't hate homosexuals, nor does he hate anyone else. If you have run into people who do, I cannot say for certain that they are not truly Christians (as a Christian would define one), but they are not following Jesus' example. You are correct in saying that He would not and in fact does not approve of such behavior.
That said, true Christian principles DO hold that homosexuality is an ungodly lifestyle. However, this is at some level a choice the person has made (i do not deny that certain biological factors may contribute to one's tendency toward homosexuality, but one still has the choice). As a choice, this lifestyle does not define the person completely, and condemnation of the lifestyle does not imply condemnation of the individual.
2. I personally have no desire to see mandated prayer in schools, and I am not alone. However, I am sure we oppose it for different reasons. Prayer is, on the whole, indeed a private matter, and I would not particularly want most teachers or students offering prayers on my behalf, anyway.
3. In a representative democracy, people are going to make efforts to see that their interests are fulfilled. Granted, it is clear that many do not feel that fundamentalists have the best interests of the country in mind, but the reverse is also likely true. By the same token, I am not aware of a great deal of religious law, other than some of Bush's actions. However, I would not be so quick to lump him with fundamentalist Christians. He is a politician; he wants votes, so he does what he thinks will get him votes.
I am not going to tell you that you have not met some pretty scummy people who have called themselves "Christians." This is truly a shame. I am also not claiming to speak for every "fundamentalist." However, I do speak for many, quite possibly a majority, of them.
In closing, I would just like to invite you and those of similar beliefs to have a more open mind on the subject, and to realise that your arguments are no less based on your beliefs and biases than anyone else's.
--------- "If I had a dollar for every time I said that, I'd be making money in a weird way."
Your point about religion is fair enough. I will concede that "religion" meaning a set of doctrines is essentially a human approximation of the real thing.
You specifically require a quote from Jesus. His earthly ministry was not generally concerned with denouncing sinners (although He did have some very harsh words for the religious people of His day, and those today who consider ourselves religious would do well to heed them).
I will give you a few from the writings of Paul nonetheless.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom. 1:26-27, NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolators nor the adulterers nor the male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1. Cor. 6:9-10, NIV)
Something worth noting in that last list: that pretty much covers everyone. We are ALL evil sinners. I am an evil sinner. Billy Graham is an evil sinner. Paul was an evil sinner. Mother Theresa was an evil sinner. We are all in the same boat.
"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:22b-23, NIV)
But it doesn't stop there
"and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:24, NIV)
"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3:25, NIV)
Homosexuality is wrong. So is hate. So are the many sins that I commit on a daily basis. The biggest reason not to hate homosexuals or anyone else: I am exactly as depraved and disobedient as they are. If I condemn them, I am condemning myself (where condemn = "to declare unfit for salvation or beyond redemption").
As for absolutism, are some things always wrong? Is it always wrong to rape and kill a woman? If there is a God and if there is truth, wouldn't these things suggest and even require moral absolutes?
Finally, I understand that many people are hesitiant to give words definite meanings. If I say that this person is a Christian and this person is not, am I not being overly judgemental? I would say no. I might say that my earlier definition of a Christian is too broad; perhaps it better applies to "believer." At the core, a Christian is someone who holds to beliefs expounded by the Christian faith in general. It doesn't make any more sense to call those who do not hold these beliefs Christians than it makes to call me a platypus.
Anyway, you have a right to express your opinions, and I do not desire otherwise. You have been quite civil, and if you desire to discuss this further in another venue, I would be more than happy to oblige. (Good-bye Karma.)
--------- "If I had a dollar for every time I said that, I'd be making money in a weird way."