Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the it's-be-awhile-since-we-talked-about-sco dept.

gaijincory writes "SCO announced it's second quarter results Wednesday. Their net loss came in at just under $2 million. Revenue was $9.2 million (down from $10.1 million in the same quarter of the prior year). The decrease in revenue was "...primarily due to continued competitive pressures on the Company's UNIX products and services.""

5 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, we know. by Animats · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That was on Groklaw days ago.

  2. Re:9 *million*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    it's a neat process. before i read the article i'd pictured an inkjet-esque approach. probably a good thing they didn't go that way --- can you imagine how much consumables would cost? to say nothing of issues related to poor quality drivers...

  3. Ubuntu by bagatonovic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ubuntu Linux RULES. SCO should take some lessons from them. Innovate don't litigate!

    1. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I think the point is that although this method is practical for Uranium bombs (the Hiroshima bomb used it), a much more complex 'implosion lens' design is required for Plutonium (or at least the grade of plutonium potentially available to the bomb makers, which had a relatively high rate of spontaneous neutron emission from 'contaminating' Pu-240). The latter design was used in the Trinity test and Nagasaki bombs.

      Incidentally, the other German bomb design in the Physics World article (the one supposedly tested) was, if correct, a early attempt to exploit both fission and tritium/deuterium fusion in a weapon. Obviously they didn't manage to achieve even the yield of a small fission bomb, let alone a hydrogen bomb, but the (apparent) fact that they were thinking this way is itself remarkable (if true).

  4. Re:Patents to the rescue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    I like the novel application of existing technologies. He's using agarose medium, pipetting, and casting into a photolithographic mold.

    One thing in the article that is a bit deceptive is that the article says that one can print with details as small as one micrometer . . . the size of a single bacterium. This may technically be true, but I doubt that controlling which individual bacterium are transferred (printed) or not is possible. And the neither the technique of pipetting bacteria nor regrowing bacteria on the agarose media is likely to have a resolution of one micrometer. Though the postulated one micrometer resolution may be possible, it is for all practical purposes impossible.