Slashdot Mirror


SCO Terminates Darl McBride

bpechter writes "Linux Today reports SCO has terminated Darl McBride and linked to the SCO 8K SEC report. The report found also at the SCO site and states: 'the Company has eliminated the Chief Executive Officer and President positions and consequently terminated Darl McBride.'"

458 comments

  1. See ya! by fataugie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

    Sucka

    --

    WTF? Over?

    1. Re:See ya! by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt he'll cry too much over it. His little stock kiting scam has made him somewhat independently wealthy, and barring a lawsuit, I doubt he'll have to give the money back.

      OTOH, I doubt that no one in the tech industry (save for maybe Microsoft) would ever hire him for anything.

      (the Linux Foundation could maybe use a janitor, but...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:See ya! by AndyFewt · · Score: 1

      Poor guy, he never deserved this! *stifles a laugh* Karma baby!

    3. Re:See ya! by couchslug · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "OTOH, I doubt that no one in the tech industry (save for maybe Microsoft) would ever hire him for anything." ....except to repeat his SCO adventures with another expendable company.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:See ya! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

      I think they've already sold the door.

      Sucka

      He's received millions in compensation during this whole pump-and-dump scam. I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:See ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fan of the double negative are we?
      Perhaps "doubt that anyone in the tech industry" might convey you intent better?

    6. Re:See ya! by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guys like this always pop up again somewhere. We have not seen the last of Darl McBride's assholery ... not by a long shot.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    7. Re:See ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does he walk backward? Or maybe he was just taking a long look back?

    8. Re:See ya! by uberjack · · Score: 1

      Cause you don't want assprints on your new door? You're not buying SCO, are you?

    9. Re:See ya! by earnest+murderer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or anyone wanting a CEO who would do anything to keep their stock prices up in their failing business.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    10. Re:See ya! by MartyBorg · · Score: 1

      Fan of the double negative are we? Perhaps "doubt that anyone in the tech industry" might convey you intent better? Perhaps you meant "convey YOUR intent"?

      --
      Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks!
    11. Re:See ya! by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      might convey you intent better?

      People in glass houses...

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    12. Re:See ya! by shadow349 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember at the end of the first Star Wars when Luke is jamming down the trench with Vader and his crew looking to bust a cap in his ass but Solo lays the smack down and Vader gets bitch slapped and they blow up the Death Star and they cut back to Vader recovering from a triple lutz doing a "WTF"?

      Darl = Darth

      Hope that clears it up for you.

    13. Re:See ya! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      It's called consulting. I hear he's in talks with Dogbert.

    14. Re:See ya! by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Remember, however, that both IBM and RedHat have Lanham Act counter-suits pending against them; therefore Darl could still lose it all and end up in the big house someday.

      --
      C|N>K
    15. Re:See ya! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      (the Linux Foundation could maybe use a janitor, but...)

      I think they'd be fools to hire him as a janitor. Think of all the mischief a sociopathic janitor could cause.

    16. Re:See ya! by ehaggis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Guys like this always pop up again somewhere

      I'm thinking "Celebrity Apprentice" or some other pseudo-celebrity reality show.

      --
      One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    17. Re:See ya! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      (the Linux Foundation could maybe use a janitor, but...)

      He'd try and steal code and copyright it.... come on man!

    18. Re:See ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's meant here is a) a swinging door, hence the warning not to let it hit you on the ass on the back swing if you're too slow or b) a spring-mounted door that swings shut forcefully and hits you in the back if you're too slow. Bottom line: Don't be too slow, do not linger, do not look back, just get the fuck out. And don't come back.

      Like they ever listen. :(

    19. Re:See ya! by stfvon007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Id hire him in a second if i was a major software company in a big building. He could be the window washer on the side of the building where people throw pennies off the roof. Of course the elevator control system will run linux and the $699 license fee will come out of his (minimum wage) pay. Also the pennies thrown off the side count as tips! :D

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    20. Re:See ya! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I've found that failed CEOs are hot commodities for some reason. Companies seem to want to hire someone's who's been a CEO once already than to actually promote someone. Most CEOs are hired to essentially promote their company and acquire more business opportunities than to actually do any leadership.

    21. Re:See ya! by gooman · · Score: 1

      I don't know...
      Darth always struck me as intelligent. Darl?

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    22. Re:See ya! by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Funny

      Darth Vader intelligent? He accepted the Darth Vader job shortly after killing his predecessor at the order of his new boss. The retirement plan was not only very bad, it was potentially very early.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:See ya! by mikerubin · · Score: 1

      Darth McBride,
      Darth Darl,

      don't let me be the only one here folks...

      --
      I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
    24. Re:See ya! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      (the Linux Foundation could maybe use a janitor, but...)

      He'd try and steal code and copyright it.... come on man!

      This would surprise you how?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    25. Re:See ya! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      This would surprise you how?

      exactly...

    26. Re:See ya! by Cyberia · · Score: 1

      NOOOOO!!!!!!! That means... Linus = Luke!?!?!?!?! ... Wait... The upshot is that we need now get to select a Princes Leah...

    27. Re:See ya! by Grog6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "(the Linux Foundation could maybe use a janitor, but...)"

      There's a good reason to take a dump in the Floor!

      "Darl, could you get that for me?"

      Not to mention the hazing part during the interview... :)

      If I posted this on GL I'd get banned; I love /.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    28. Re:See ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys like this always pop up again somewhere.

      Simple physics -- shit floats.

    29. Re:See ya! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Guys like this always pop up again somewhere. We have not seen the last of Darl McBride's assholery ... not by a long shot.

      You're right. He's the type that will land seat in the Senate. And why not? Carly Fiorina is running for it in California 2010 too.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    30. Re:See ya! by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      It's princess Leia, dummy.

    31. Re:See ya! by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I've found that failed CEOs are hot commodities for some reason.

      Sco and Microsoft just invested millions in his education!

    32. Re:See ya! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      *spoiler alert*

      PJ is Linus' sister? OMG?!

      */spoiler alert*

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    33. Re:See ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jonathan Schwartz must be feeling mighty nervous right about now...

    34. Re:See ya! by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      That stock price artificially bubbled for about a year and a half then plumeted hard. Now its a bankerupt company with a tonne of impending lawsuits about to rip it a new asshole, and the potential for individuals in the company to be personally targeted for fuck-off sized lawsuits and even criminal law repercussions.

      The sad thing is, before that happened it had strong IP in its adaption of NOVEL's unix that was still used in industry and Caldera linux was a more or less respected brand in certain elements of the IT industry. It'd still be around ten years from now. In a year it'll be dead and a litany of current and former management will be wishing they never heard the accursed name of Darl McBride.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  2. Could I possibly be the first... by hcpxvi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... to say Hahahahaha?

    1. Re:Could I possibly be the first... by mrops · · Score: 1

      No

    2. Re:Could I possibly be the first... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh too hard, he probably got a contractual gajillion dollar check on his way out the door.

  3. "terminates" by the_fat_kid · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think that word means what I want it to...

    --
    -- Sig under construction...
    1. Re:"terminates" by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm disappointed too, I thought maybe he met the governor of California.

    2. Re:"terminates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Inconceivable!"

    3. Re:"terminates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconceivable!

    4. Re:"terminates" by slugicide · · Score: 1

      You'd think The Terminator movies and TV shows would kind of bring home the meaning of the word.

    5. Re:"terminates" by noidentity · · Score: 1

      It was a letdown for me too. All at once, I realized that Skynet etc. were a good thing, and that this was the first evidence of it. But alas, I find it was just something mundane.

    6. Re:"terminates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE, please, please, please keep him out of California. It's bad enough as it is.

  4. That's a bit harsh by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    >SCO has terminated Darl McBride

    That's a bit harsh. Couldn't they just have fired him?

    --
    Evil people are out to get you.
    1. Re:That's a bit harsh by selven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't fire him - he's inflammable.

    2. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be pedantic (oh who am I kidding, this is Slashdot!) but the word I think you want is non-flammable as opposed to the word you used which is its direct opposite.

    3. Re:That's a bit harsh by rhizome · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a bit harsh. Couldn't they just have fired him?

      You cannot fire that which does not work.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:That's a bit harsh by paulhar · · Score: 1

      Did they send someone back through time to do it?

    5. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the joke...

    6. Re:That's a bit harsh by furby076 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You cannot fire that which does not work.

      That's not what your boss will say when he finds out you were on /. instead of working.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    7. Re:That's a bit harsh by JerkBoB · · Score: 5, Funny

      <dr. nick>Inflammable means flammable?!? What a country!</dr. nick>

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    8. Re:That's a bit harsh by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... out of a cannon, through a flaming hoop, and into a net ... placed approximately 3 inches above a pool with hungry sharks (frickin' laser beams optional)?

      If they showed that on Pay-Per-View they might actually be able to raise enough money to repay (I'd originally written "pay off") everyone they owe.

    9. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they just have fired him?

      ...from a cannon ...into the sun.

    10. Re:That's a bit harsh by copponex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What happens when I tell your mom that your room isn't clean? Time to look for a new basement!

    11. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly, I am unemployed ATM.

    12. Re:That's a bit harsh by mindcorrosive · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nuke him from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      + 3.14 Transcendental
    13. Re:That's a bit harsh by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      I would suggest more explosives and a bigger cannon...

    14. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invincible = cannot be beaten.
      Inflammable = CAN be set on fire.

      Dr. Nick isn't the only confused one here.

    15. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, out of a cannon? That sounds pretty harsh too.

    16. Re:That's a bit harsh by saturndude · · Score: 1


      <Yakov Smirnoff>I invented that first! And what a country!</Yakov Smirnoff>

    17. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can. You can fire lots of things from a cannon regardless of whether they are working or not.

    18. Re:That's a bit harsh by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that nowadays even ATMs post on Slashdot. Can you please send a few dollar notes out of my printer? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    19. Re:That's a bit harsh by furby076 · · Score: 4, Funny

      She'll come and clean it? WTH you doing talking to my mommy?

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    20. Re:That's a bit harsh by krelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strange. I always thought he was a giant fart.

    21. Re:That's a bit harsh by HydroPhonic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flammable means burnable Inflammable means ignitable For example, magnesium is flammable, but not very inflammable....

    22. Re:That's a bit harsh by tohoward · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    23. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you didn't mean inflameable?

    24. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is no such distinction. Even concrete will burn. "Flammable" was coined precisely because people got confused by "Inflammable".

    25. Re:That's a bit harsh by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Out of a gun, into the sun.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    26. Re:That's a bit harsh by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just have fired him?

      ...from a cannon ...into the sun.

      Better question: Will he blend??

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    27. Re:That's a bit harsh by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      >SCO has terminated Darl McBride

      That's a bit harsh. Couldn't they just have fired him?

      They even eliminated him as well, according to The Fine Form 8-K.
      Regards,
      The department of redundancy department.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    28. Re:That's a bit harsh by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

      Did they send someone back through time to do it?

      If SCO has access to time travel technology, the only thing preventing them from winning lawsuits and running a profitable business is their own incompetence.

    29. Re:That's a bit harsh by StringBlade · · Score: 1

      And here I thought "invincible" meant cannot be Vince...

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    30. Re:That's a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk? We usually don't talk...

    31. Re:That's a bit harsh by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      She'll come and clean it? WTH you doing talking to my mommy?

      Paying $0.89 a minute.

  5. Dang... only fired. by Kenja · · Score: 3, Funny

    "terminated" can mean so many more interesting things.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Dang... only fired. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I don't think he'd find a job working in a SCSI chain anyway.

    2. Re:Dang... only fired. by jd · · Score: 1

      What about thick-wire ethernet?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Dang... only fired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As can fired.

    4. Re:Dang... only fired. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      "Fired" still sounds better than "I'll Be Back" in this case.

  6. Big deal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy gave us grief for years and no doubt socked away millions on what he got from kiting their stock. He and Ralph Yarro (the owner) get away scott free, and let's not forget that besides the money there are the two suicides connected with this case: Val Kreidl Noorda and Rob Penrose.

    1. Re:Big deal by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agreed. Call me when the shareholder lawsuit gets filed (if ever).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Big deal by Jailbrekr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Further to that, now that he's no longer at SCO, no one knows where he is going to land. Now that he has a taste for FOSS blood, he might end up at another company whose sole business model is litigation.

      --
      Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    3. Re:Big deal by GPLDAN · · Score: 5, Informative

      From: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19229004_ITM

      Val Noorda Kreidel, Ray Noorda's only daughter, shot herself to death at her home in Huntington Beach, California at 8am last Thursday morning, March 17, according to Orange County supervising deputy coroner Cullen Ellingburgh.

      She shot herself in the head with a handgun, Ellingburgh said. He ruled out murder.
      Ms. Kreidel committed suicide less than a week after the fracas over the management of the Canopy Group, her father's venture capital operation, was settled.

      She was 49 and leaves a husband, four daughters and a son in addition to her parents and brothers.

      The settlement transferred Canopy's 32% position in the infamous SCO Group and an undisclosed amount of money to former Canopy CEO Ralph Yarro. The Yahoo message board related to SCO's stock wasn't content with the initial report that Ms. Kriedel died of an apparent heart attack and placed calls to the coroner that tore away the protective euphemism.

      Given Ms. Kriedel's conservative Mormon roots, one can understand why the family might be giving it out that she died of natural causes.

    4. Re:Big deal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Funny

      Call me when the SEC goes after them. I won't hold my breath.

    5. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their assets have been seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.

    6. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, Bruce. Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. Why, if CEOs do not try every ruthless, amoral strategy they can think up, they aren't competing. Without competition, the fat lazy companies take over the business ecosystem. If companies did not try to take advantage of every customer, supplier, and worker, those customers, suppliers, and workers would take advantage of them, or worse yet, everyone would get a fair deal. And if everyone got a fair deal, the strong would not succeed and the weak would not fail, and that would weaken the gene pool.

      See, by relentlessly screwing us over, people like Darrell are improving the species.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Big deal by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose it depends on how you define natural causes...

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    8. Re:Big deal by EvilNTUser · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better not go swimming then.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    9. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats from 2005. what the hell is your point? quit the threadjack.

    10. Re:Big deal by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bank Of America seems to have an opening for a CEO that likes to really mess up the company they run. Darl would be perfect!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    11. Re:Big deal by bb5ch39t · · Score: 0, Troll

      I vaguely remember this. But the "to the head" I don't remember. I do remember hearing that __women__ rarely shot themselves in the head due to the damage it does to their looks. Vanity, thy name is WOMAN. But it would put my alert on that suicide was less than likely.

    12. Re:Big deal by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Broken Window Fallacy

      (though to be sure, I *can* detect sarcasm, I just had to put the term out there anyway.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    13. Re:Big deal by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given Ms. Kriedel's conservative Mormon roots, one can understand why the family might be giving it out that she died of natural causes.

      I assume you're point is that suicide is considered an unforgivable sin in Mormonism?

      If so, and if they really believed it, I would expect them to be far more worried about their daughter's eternal fate, than what the community thought.

    14. Re:Big deal by H0p313ss · · Score: 0

      If so, and if they really believed it, I would expect them to be far more worried about their daughter's eternal fate, than what the community thought.

      I'm thinking that the religious people you know might not behave as the ones I know.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    15. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism.

      Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.

      How did this not get a single flame mod?

    16. Re:Big deal by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose it depends on how you define natural causes...

      Lead poisoning?

    17. Re:Big deal by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those two things are not mutually exclusive. If I had a child who committed suicide, I'd be disinclined to share that information.

      Regarding suicide being a sin, it's a touchy subject though because many, if not most, people who commit suicide are mentally ill or are suffering from other mitigating circumstances. I can't speak for Mormon theology, but as a Catholic, we can pray for the repose of that person's soul. We cannot and do not judge the disposition of that person's soul. Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just. There's not much else you can do.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:Big deal by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I didn't know about the suicides; wow. That's really bad.

      On a slightly different topic, while you're here...I know I've trolled you mightily in the past, but for what it (probably isn't ;)) worth, I suspect you and I probably have fairly similar attitudes on the Mono issue.

      To me, anyone who doesn't think Mono/Codeplex is an attempt at embrace and extend is wearing blinders.

      I'm not overly worried, however. As insane as this might sound, I actually think this is a good thing. Why, I hear you ask? Simple. When Microsoft get caught for this, everyone will finally have a completely legitimate basis for never, ever trusting them again. People talk about how everyone deserves a second chance. After Halloween, I suspect this was Microsoft's second chance.

      They blow this, and they have lost trust for good.

    19. Re:Big deal by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Were they not going to sue BoA but sued Chrysler instead?

    20. Re:Big deal by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Shh.. don't give them ideas!

    21. Re:Big deal by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase a grumpy old author, "In the end, all causes of death can be listed as heart failure."

    22. Re:Big deal by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mormon theology is one of the most lenient when it comes to suicide. The person who died gets full burial rights and it's believed that if the dead was not 100% in control of their mental faculties (i.e. schizophrenia, drug side effects, clinical depression, etc), then they won't be held accountable for that act when the judgement day comes. Since no one knows but the dead and God if that was the case, then the church assumes the person was spiritually innocent and treats their service and their family as if it were natural causes, letting the judgement fall completely on the other side.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    23. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism.

      Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.

      How did this not get a single flame mod?

      Because everyone knows I'm right. Show me one business that has been around 'for the long haul' that does not have at least one black mark of this type on it's record, and I'll back down.

      People are sick and tired of this kind of capitalism. They see it on Wall Street every day. They see it destroying America, and they hate it. So no, nobody feels like I'm flaming anything. Just telling the hard truth. Most Americans are moral people. Most CEOs aren't, and people are tired of Wall Street Fat Cats getting respect they don't deserve.

      I'm not badmouthing capitalism in general here, just the utter lack of morals it encourages. Amoral behavior is not okay, and America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    24. Re:Big deal by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Though it wasn't a Mormon church, when I was a kid there was a huge stink in the town I lived in because a young woman that had been abused by her husband for years committed suicide and the church refused to allow her to be buried with the rest of her family on church grounds, with the excuse that it was the one unforgivable sin.

      Even if that weren't the case, a suicide in the family is never something people brag about. Many of those left after such an act feel both betrayed and blindsided by it, wondering if it was their fault that the intentions were caught in time and prevented. Shame is a strong motivator.

    25. Re:Big deal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.

      For how long?

    26. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niko Bellic: "Of course. It seems a bullet in the head is as natural as it gets in this town."

    27. Re:Big deal by ppanon · · Score: 1

      The problem is that these days, too many of the people in charge don't care about the long haul as long as they keep the company afloat long enough to cash out on bonus incentives.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    28. Re:Big deal by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Makes sense to me, but why should I trust a "CorporateSuit"? ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    29. Re:Big deal by dissy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.

      For how long?

      Until the next season of TV starts up in about a month :{

    30. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just. There's not much else you can do.

      Sure there is. You can put away the religious nonsense and acknowledge the fact that death is the final act of life. You can recognize that there are no far-reaching moral implications of a person choosing to end their life. You can admit that while being a tragedy for those left behind, there is no judgmental sky wizard who will punish your soul for eternity.

      It amazes me that we're now in the 21st century and so many people still cling to these ancient Middle-Eastern tribal mythologies in an attempt to understand the world around them.

    31. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.

      For how long?

      How long does it take a generation to forget a major recession? Five years? Ten?

      How long did it take to make it okay to say, 'greed is good,' in public? Back in the 50s and 60s, it was not okay to say that. CEOs and other corporate fat cats could not flaunt their amorality. They had to at least pay lip service to being good community members.

      If I recall, greed started being 'good' in the eighties, at least according to Gordon Gekko. I don't think the majority of people think it is anymore. Maybe we can hold better values than greed in high esteem again, things like cooperation, fairness, reciprocity, service, and selflessness.

      Maybe we shouldn't be playing the sociopath's game if we aren't sociopaths. They will always win that game.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    32. Re:Big deal by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 1

      I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their assets have been seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.

      I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their asses have been seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.

      Fixed that for ya...

    33. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that kind of improvement, some would say that we're better off not improving.

    34. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think this kind of behavior has anything to do with capitalism, you're going to come to a sad realization someday. People act like this in every system - it's exactly why communism "doesn't work", why capitalism "doesn't work" and why everything in between "doesn't work".

      On the social front, do your own part to foster personal accountability and ethical behavior. On the political front, make good law and enforce it effectively. If a nation succeeds at these things it will prosper, regardless of whether it picked the "correct" theory of property. Whatever that is.

    35. Re:Big deal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was only a decade between Michael Milken and Enron. And look how many kudos Milken gets for his philantrophy these days. 6 months in jail and they didn't take his money away.

    36. Re:Big deal by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Catholicism has a belief in purgatory though, which most Protestant denominations do not believe in.

      Personally, having been raised Baptist, it was taught that suicide was pretty much a straight ticket to hell with no redemption, period. Reason I was always given was that "Sin cannot enter into heaven.", and that killing yourself was a big enough sin that you would have to ask for forgiveness before entering heaven, but given your death in the act you never would have a chance to repent for that sin.

      Being the inquisitive little brat that I was I did bring up the issue that maybe if you jumped off a bridge you might have a change of heart and repent for it on the way down, or maybe if you hung yourself you might do the same and repent before you passed out/died, and my elders begrudgingly said that if that happened then yes, you could still go to heaven. I don't think they liked that line of questioning though :).

      However any case of you shooting yourself in the head (ie, anything immediately fatal) was definitely a 1 way ticket according to them.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    37. Re:Big deal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Geez. When I die, I expect to be rotting meat. Period.

    38. Re:Big deal by jfbilodeau · · Score: 1

      The parent post cracked me up! But why was it modded as informative? ...or am I assuming too much about the average swimming skills of my fellow /.ers?

      --
      Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    39. Re:Big deal by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's about the point I'm at too, but I was just illustrating the differences as a comparative study of the religions :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    40. Re:Big deal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      let's not forget that besides the money there are the two suicides connected with this case

      You can't blame suicide on anyone but the mentally ill person who kills himself. The only two people responsible for these suicides are Val Kreidl Noorda and Rob Penrose.

      It's the living that McBride has harmed.

    41. Re:Big deal by Quothz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Show me one business that has been around 'for the long haul' that does not have at least one black mark of this type on it's record, and I'll back down.

      Lego. Zippo. They're out there, although few and far between: Small companies that actually make things and aren't cutthroat because they're the best at what they do, that live on reputations of quality--real quality, not the word "quality". And more often than not, they end up selling out to huge conglomerates that either wisely let them do their thing in peace (Ben & Jerry's), or milk their reputation while letting them rot (Singer). But there are a (very) few out there that stay independent and manage to not be evil without it being a marketing strategy.

    42. Re:Big deal by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      We shall have to agree to disagree.

      By the way, you tend not to have much luck convincing people to consider your point of view by mocking them. Just saying...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    43. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People do not act like this in every system. Systems impact how people act. There will always be selfish people in any system, true. But systems that cater to and reward selfish behavior, that don't allow people to punish unfairness, will create more selfishness.

      While your suggestions as to how to correct things are astute, you seem to be denying the impact that economic systems can have on people's behavior. You may want to read up on modern economic theory. Economic systems can make a huge difference in whether people play fair or not. Look up various games theory experiments, the dictator game, the public goods game, the ultimatum game. Or google, 'fairness reciprocity economic research.' It turns out that, counter to your assertion, people are not primarily selfish or self interested. They are far more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity. Only when they have no power to punish unfairness in others do most people resort to selfishness, to avoid being taken advantage of.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    44. Re:Big deal by Egdiroh · · Score: 1

      Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.

      Business isn't about successfully running a business. It's about creating an environment where the major inner circle investors can make boat loads of money, if my nothing else, destroying the company.

    45. Re:Big deal by danaris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Catholicism has a belief in purgatory though, which most Protestant denominations do not believe in.

      That's because the Pope made it up some time in the Middle Ages as a fundraising tool.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    46. Re:Big deal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      many, if not most, people who commit suicide are mentally ill

      If you commit suicide you ARE mentally ill.

    47. Re:Big deal by harmonise · · Score: 1

      let's not forget that besides the money there are the two suicides connected with this case: Val Kreidl Noorda and Rob Penrose.

      I've never heard of either of them. How are their deaths related to SCO? Some background would be helpful.

      --
      Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
    48. Re:Big deal by HeliumHigh · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I am a member of the LDS Church, but I do know LDS (Mormon) theology somewhat. Suicide isn't considered an "unforgivable sin". The official policy is to assume that a suicide victim's soul isn't damned to hell or any of that nonsense. Quite a few years back we had a suicide in our immediate family, and although sad and shocking, the person was buried in their temple clothes. What that means is that it was assumed that they were (for a lack of a better phrase) sick in the head and made a bad judgment, and therefore either forgiven or simply not at fault. I firmly believe that person is enjoying all the benefits that heaven has to offer!

    49. Re:Big deal by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Personally, having been raised Baptist, it was taught that suicide was pretty much a straight ticket to hell with no redemption, period.

      Yes, it's number 43694.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    50. Re:Big deal by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Agreed, my mortgage was just sold to them :(

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    51. Re:Big deal by mike260 · · Score: 1

      I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their asses have been seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.

      I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their asses have seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.

      Fixed it some more.

    52. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your fellow slashdotters are fat. very very fat.

    53. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that guy was nothing but a muppet. the company deserving the anger is the one that paid for this smear theatre going on for ages.

    54. Re:Big deal by Trails · · Score: 1

      This would imply buoyancy, hence an easier time swimming. No, we still haven't gotten to the crux of this yet...

    55. Re:Big deal by nametaken · · Score: 1

      She was 49 and leaves a husband, four daughters and a son in addition to her parents and brothers.

      It seems odd for a 49 year old woman to commit suicide by handgun. Especially so for one that has a husband, five kids, parents and siblings.

    56. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vaguely remember this. But the "to the head" I don't remember. I do remember hearing that __women__ rarely shot themselves in the head due to the damage it does to their looks. Vanity, thy name is WOMAN. But it would put my alert on that suicide was less than likely.

      I think it's more that women usually don't want to die in the attempt, but instead want to use it as a cry for help. Men, on the other hand, are expected to solve all their own problems, so are more likely to want to die in the attempt. (And why not, when reaching out for help would be a social death sentence, anyway?)

    57. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All religions are "made up"... Imagginattion, Imaggination.... Imaaaaginaaaation

      Behold the power of Imagination Land.

    58. Re:Big deal by strong_epoxy · · Score: 1

      The US government messed up Bank of America, not the CEO.

    59. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you hold true on earth....................

    60. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if everyone got a fair deal, the strong would not succeed and the weak would not fail, and that would weaken the gene pool.

      But if the environment is such that everyone is getting a fair deal, then there are no strong or weak individuals, and thus the gene pool cannot be weak!

      This highlights the problem in many people's understanding of natural selection, and the problem with any kind of eugenics--this assumption that there's some ideal, unchanging environment by which the fitness of all individuals can (or even should) be judged. The problem is, real environments are never static, and most people's version of the ideal environment has little to do with any real environment.

    61. Re:Big deal by mfh · · Score: 1

      He and Ralph Yarro (the owner) get away scott free

      I'm certain anyone named Scott would object to being linked with the likes of these two scumbags. No these guys have achieved a whole other level of freedom from responsibility. They are above the law. And nobody is going to do a damn thing about it.

      Just like the bailout scam. Just like the housing market scam. The big rich guys don't have to worry about a thing because nobody will stop them. Right?

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    62. Re:Big deal by pyrr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indulgences were the fundraising tool, the notion of Purgatory simply created the demand. Johann Tetzel even came up with a witty slogan, translated from German, it went something like, "Every time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!".

      This very act of blatant corruption is purportedly what motivated Martin Luther to post his theses on the church door, and later led to the schism. So naturally Protestants would wish to distance themselves from the things the movement's founder was protesting.

    63. Re:Big deal by edittard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just. There's not much else you can do.

      You mean apart from getting a clue and becoming an atheist?

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    64. Re:Big deal by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even when your head is up there on a spike.

    65. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl @ Rambus. I can't decide if that is good or not.

    66. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Bruce. Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism.

      No, it's the cornerstone of fraud. If it's illegal, it's illegal. I didn't mention morals in there, just that it's ILLEGAL.

      Why, if CEOs do not try every ruthless, amoral strategy they can think up, they aren't competing.

      True, because corporations are amoral by definition, and are legally required to be so. Nothing new there.

      Without competition, the fat lazy companies take over the business ecosystem.

      Since when did business endevours turn into the fictional account of a wildebeast?

      If companies did not try to take advantage of every customer, supplier, and worker, those customers, suppliers, and workers would take advantage of them, or worse yet, everyone would get a fair deal.

      As a customer, if I'm not getting a fair deal, then I'm taking my business elsewhere. Go suck on that thought for a bit.

      And if everyone got a fair deal, the strong would not succeed and the weak would not fail, and that would weaken the gene pool.

      If everyone got a "fair deal", you wouldn't have goddamn tent towns going up around the country. What fucking planet do you live on?

      See, by relentlessly screwing us over, people like Darrell are improving the species.

      You're joking, right? You do realize that you're advocating a self-destructive genetic monoculture vis-a-vis eugenic inbreeding of destructive traits? And if that leads to the elimination of the species, just how does that improve it at the same time? Are you implying that humans shouldn't exist? By extension, you're implying you yourself do not want to exist?

      Survival of the fittest my ass. Tell you what, your amoral semi-illegal wheeling-dealing-darwinistic ass can come after me all it wants, because if I found someone like you on my property, you'd have 5 seconds to leave before I blew your head off into the next county...

    67. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have found I can swim quite comfortably without holding anything. Now diving...

    68. Re:Big deal by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Call me when the SEC goes after them. I won't hold my breath.

      I want to see the shareholders bankrupt them before the SEC gets to them. Then won't be able to afford a lawyer and prison will be a step up.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    69. Re:Big deal by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      6 months in jail and they didn't take his money away.

      But they'll take a guy's car if he's caught buying marijuana from an undercover cop.

    70. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further to that, now that he's no longer at SCO, no one knows where he is going to land. Now that he has a taste for FOSS blood, he might end up at another company whose sole business model is litigation.

      He can take my job at Burger King.

    71. Re:Big deal by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Does Slashdot have the ability to mod an entire branch Off-Topic?

      Have any other SCO stockholders had a marriage or bar mitzvah we should know about?

    72. Re:Big deal by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      By failing to regulate it. Then again, the CEO didn't either.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    73. Re:Big deal by strong_epoxy · · Score: 1

      Is your definition of 'regulation:' 'forcing it to buy Merrill under protest and against the CEO's judgement?' BoA was successful and would have nicely survived the crisis had the government not imposed your 'regulation.'

    74. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, layers of abstraction encourage antisocial behavior. It is a very different thing to be unfair to a person directly versus being unfair to customers on behalf of shareholders. The corporate model facilitates this kind of behavior. The internet does to (trolls, flame wars and the like are a product).

      -sk

    75. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 1
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    76. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't speak for Mormon theology, but as a Catholic, we can pray for the repose of that person's soul."

      You don't know as a Catholic either. Killing is a mortal sin as it is suicide; there's no greys on this, just black and white. Of course you can pray for the repose of that person's soul, but that will mean nothing (well, it might help *you* once dead since it shows your misercordy): a person died under mortal sin goes to hell, full stop (if it's only venial sins, well, you go to Purgatory and yes, your prays will help). If you don't like it, buy a different religion.

      "We cannot and do not judge the disposition of that person's soul."

      Of course you can't and of course you don't know 'a priori' what will be God's disposition for that soul because you can't know all the facts. But what you *do* know is that under Catholic Church, mortal sins are payed with the whole Eternity on Hell.

      "Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just."

      There's quite large books on the issue (and I mean written by catholic authorities) and the end result is that you can't be just if you do not entitle your own laws. There's Hell, there are souls going to Hell and they are those of the ones dead under mortal sin.

      "There's not much else you can do."

      Yes: there's one thing you can do. If you say you are a religion's believer you can be there not only when you percieve a benefit (if I'm a good boy I'll go Heaven, whooa!) but on the harsh part too (but if you don't behave as told you will suffer for the whole Eternity, boohoo!).

    77. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the alternative to capitalism (socialism) has such a better track record...

    78. Re:Big deal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As far as I am concerned greed is good. How long can a society last if it is only relying on every member of it behaving in a manner that hurts that society the least if doing the opposite is actually personally profitable? Seriously, how long? Greed is good because it is a very well anchored idea, it is selfish and it is reliable. You know people will behave in ways that will benefit them personally because of greed. Oh, sure, sure, there are always exceptions and nobody behaves that way 100% of the time, but it does not change the thesis.

    79. Re:Big deal by Thanar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your history is flat out wrong. Belief in purgatory is well substantiated among Christians in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, long before the Middle Ages, citing the scriptural basis for it in 1 Cor 3:10-15: "If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (Origen, Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448, 185-232 A.D.) "Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness." (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:14, ~180-210 A.D.)

    80. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me one corporation that has been around 'for the long haul' that does not have at least one piece of legislation giving it an edge over honest competition, and I'll back down.

      People are sick and tired of this kind of corporatism. They see it on Wall Street every day. They see it destroying America, and they hate it.

      There, FTFY.

    81. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bank Of America seems to have an opening for a CEO that likes to really mess up the company they run. Darl would be perfect!

      Wait, let me close out my account first.

    82. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'As a catholic'? What are you doing on this board, you child molester? Are you going to free yourself in your lifetime, you despicable maggot? Go away. Just go away. Far far away. And take your perverts with you.

    83. Re:Big deal by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      I don't think we have seen the last of the "suicides" connected to this case.

      I suspect that several "loose" ends will be cleared out; look for a press release about Darl feeling despondent... He knows who the puppetmaster is.

      The question isn't 'how big a check'; it's 'is a payoff or a contract cheaper'?

      I've never known a Mormon to suicide... I know it happens, but it's rare.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    84. Re:Big deal by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Lego? You mean the Internet domain squatter?

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    85. Re:Big deal by v1 · · Score: 1

      remember, fat floats.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    86. Re:Big deal by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Lego? You mean the Internet domain squatter?

      This from gzipped_tar, the wife beater.

      Okay, not really, but I'm making a point. Everything I see out there shows Lego actively opposing domain squatting both as it applies to their stuff (but avoiding suing squatters) and as a general principle. I see no accusations, credible or not, of them squatting, although I confess I'm not looking too hard.

      Unless you're calling defensive domain registration "squatting", but you'd be the first I've heard make that argument.

    87. Re:Big deal by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God

      "Shave with Gillette Mach 3, to ensure you fully remove all stubble. Gillette, the best a Christian man can get."

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    88. Re:Big deal by randyh1 · · Score: 1

      The truth is, it doesn't matter how a person dies... regarding their eternal salvation, that is. If you'll allow me, I think I can sum it up in a couple of sentences. This may seem harsh, but the truth is as it is. Prior to one's death, if they had trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord, then their home is in Heaven, forever more. If they have not received God's free gift of eternal life by trusting in the life, death, burial, resurrection, and person of Jesus Christ (a.k.a. the Gospel), their fate is eternal separation from God, which is Hell. Once a person is dead, there is nothing you, I, or they can do to change their destiny. See: http://needhim.org/

    89. Re:Big deal by piepkraak · · Score: 0

      Like a true believer.

    90. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike Protestantism* which was created in the middle ages by a King who wanted to use the power of religion over his subjects, but didn't want to have to listen to the Pope.

      *Often confused with Lutheran.

    91. Re:Big deal by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What's your damage, mcgrew? You sound bitter.

      History abounds with examples of people for whom suicide was probably the only sane choice.

      And here are two fairly well-known examples from fiction.

      And no, I'm not attempting either to Godwin the thread or to advocate suicide as a suitable solution to most personal problems, just pointing out that it's not always as simple as blanket statements such as yours make it out to be.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    92. Re:Big deal by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      It was only a decade between Michael Milken and Enron. And look how many kudos Milken gets for his philantrophy these days. 6 months in jail and they didn't take his money away.

      Well, he did pay 900 million or so. So part of his money was taken away.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    93. Re:Big deal by LibertarianWackJob · · Score: 1

      Bible Church theology - Jesus paid the punishment for our sins on the cross. When we in trust that, we are saved. All of our sins past, present, and future are forgiven. That means that if a believer gets depressed, mentally ill, or whatever and kills themselves, it's forgiven.

      Even though this security in Christ is a fantastic deal, don't think that is a license to continue sinning. It's not.

      --
      What? ®
    94. Re:Big deal by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      I know modern economics is sort like taking a road trip and having to drive over a cliff every 50 miles.

    95. Re:Big deal by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Do you know of anyplace where the story of the Canopy group has been neatly summarized? I'm curious about it and all I can find are endless details.

    96. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 1

      Read up on modern economic experiments. People value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, only resorting to self interested behavior when the system seems unfair, and they might be taken advantage of. Look at experiments like the dictator game, the ultimatum game, and the public goods game. Google 'fairness reciprocity economic experiment.'

      Greed is not reliable, it is not the basis of economic behavior, people aren't logical, self interested actors. Being selfish rather than fair and reciprocal does not feel good to most people.

      This isn't to say that society should make anti-social behaviors profitable. Quite the opposite. Society should strive to encourage fairness and reciprocity, as more people will feel comfortable being fair and reciprocating if society encourages it and discourages selfishness.

      Greed is not 'good.' It is, by definition, bad. Bad for society, and as it turns out, bad for the individual. There is a reason every major religion, philosophy and spiritual practice condemns it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    97. Re:Big deal by penguintutor · · Score: 1

      Let me see - theoretical job interview:

      New company: What were your previous achievements?

      McBride: Well I took a moderately successful Unix company, dropped anything that was worthwhile and instead tried to sue IBM, Novell and others. That went horribly wrong and backfired to the point where they told me I didn't even own what I was trying to get compensation for.

      So I tried again and again using far more money than we could afford until the company filed for bankrupcy protection.

      At which point they fired me.

      So now you can see why I'd make a valuable asset to your company. I could grind that into the ground as well.

      -- Somehow I don't see McBride getting any more responsibility beyond asking "Do you want fries with that?"

    98. Re:Big deal by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      If you're going to get pedantic on me, you shouldn't be so sloppy with your langauge:

      "Killing is a mortal sin as it is suicide; there's no greys on this, just black and white."

      Killing? Really? So soldiers in a just war are toast? I'll have to look that up in my Catechism. No, wait, I don't. Bzzzzt.

      As to the nature of mortal sin being only "black and white", Mr. Anonymous Coward, if that is your real name, there are conditions to a sin being mortal:

      1. It must be a serious and grave sin.

      2. You must have "sufficient reflection" on the grievous nature of the sin being committed.

      3. You must commit the sin of your own free will.

      For more detail, you can see the section on "Imputability" on this page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

      I'm not contradicting Catholic doctrine in any way when I suggest that a mentally ill or even an overwrought person who commits suicide might be lack culpability because of conditions 2 and 3. I am merely stating that we cannot know whether these mitigating circumstances exist in any case, and can pray for the person, and as I stated above, can place our faith in the mercy and justice of God.

      In the future, I would suggest you be more careful in understanding and communicating Catholic doctrine before you accuse others of hypocrisy. It might save some hurt feelings, and more importantly, might keep you from looking like an idiot.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    99. Re:Big deal by sjames · · Score: 1

      To a CEO, the "long haul" is just long enough for all of his stock and retirement benefits to vest, then he's outathere. He will happily set the company up to give him personally the maximum value at that time even if it means crashing and burning as he's walking out the door with his bank account fat pockets filled with whatever office supplies he could lift.

    100. Re:Big deal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      This is all good and nice, except that you are proposing that society should rely on people valuing fairness and reciprocity and I am saying that in the long term it will break the society because there will always be people taking advantage of this reliance and these people will base their decision mostly on greed.

      Any society that forgets this will be taken advantage of eventually and in a way that will surprise many. The realization will always be harsh and accompanied by economic downturn and will hurt mostly those who are 'good' people, the ones who value fairness and selflessness, those who just live normally within the system, the unsuspecting ones, the ones who believe that society does and should protect them through a fair/balanced form of government. All of this while the government will be overrun by those, who are propelled mostly by greed and selfishness. Good luck.

    101. Re:Big deal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not bitter, I haven't had anyone close to me suicide, but I know a few clinically depressed people and they're the only ones I've known who were suicidal. It's just a fact -- if you kill yourself because your girl dumped you or you lost your job or someone's bullying you, you're mentally ill.

      Rommel was an exception; if I have the choice of suicide or torture, I'd choose suicide, too, but it isn't really suicide, as you're really dead already but your heart and brain still work. The same goes for terminally ill patients who choose to die.

      Its been years since I read Green Hills, but iirc (didn't click the wiki link) it was a heroic gesture. A guy who falls on a grenade to save his buddies likewise isn't committing suicide, as he's already dead, too.

    102. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 1

      You are correct. From the studies I have read about these economic experiments I mentioned, about 10-15 percent of people are selfless and fair nearly all the time. About 5 percent are selfish and exploitative, all the time. It is the rest of the people who are the interesting case.

      When people can punish unfairness, everyone else tends to be fair. When it is easy to take advantage of others, everyone else tends to be selfish.

      I'm not proposing that people rely on anything. That would be foolish, according to the data I've presented. I'm proposing that we do not worship selfishness. I'm proposing that we do not set up our economic system to expect and encourage it. I'm proposing we give people more direct control over punishing unfairness.

      The problem, according to the data I've seen, is that (so far anyway) all attempts to deal with the selfish 5% have resulted in systems that favor them. By assuming selfishness, the system requires everyone to either be selfish or be taken advantage of.

      This is a hard problem. Centralize power in any form, and the sociopaths flock to that power structure. Decentralize power and we are easier to pick off one by one. Act selflessly and be taken advantage of, or act selfishly and get beaten at a game the sociopaths just play better. How do we as a society arrange our affairs so that we do not encourage selfishness as a defensive reaction to selfishness? How do we enact society wide rules without creating a centralized power structure that becomes a haven for sociopaths?

      I think a constitutional direct democracy would work with today's communications technology. Representational democracy has unfortunately proven itself quite amenable to takeover by sociopaths.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    103. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reason I was always given was that "Sin cannot enter into heaven.", and that killing yourself was a big enough sin that you would have to ask for forgiveness before entering heaven, but given your death in the act you never would have a chance to repent for that sin.

      Which is bizarre, because the blood of Jesus wipes away all sins (past and future). Once you've accepted Jesus as your salvation, nothing can take that away.

      At least, that's what I was taught as a baptist growing up.

    104. Re:Big deal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If you commit suicide you ARE mentally ill.

      what about people in severe pain with terminal disease?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    105. Re:Big deal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm not badmouthing capitalism in general here, just the utter lack of morals it encourages. Amoral behavior is not okay, and America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.

      It's not capitalism, it's corporatism. The only reason these people get away with their behavior is that the government shields them from prosecution by the concept of a 'corporation', which is a creation of government. You're far less likely to get screwed over by a partnership or a small business.

      There are some benefits to having corporations, but these things need to be weighed in the balance. It seems to me that we now have almost full regulatory capture of the federal government and that the system, as-is, has proven too dangerous and non-resistant to corruption. Un-winding Santa Clara is probably more than anybody in government could handle, yet isn't a re-tooling better than a revolution?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    106. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 1

      Without some kind of major overhaul, capitalism becomes corporatism with the same kind of historical certainty that communism becomes tyranny.

      Seeing as how the issue of corporate rights in Santa Clara was decided by a law clerk and not a Supreme Court judge, it really shouldn't be any trouble to overturn that aspect of the case.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    107. Re:Big deal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I do not believe it is possible to create an artificial stable system of government that will not become corrupt.

      First problem: those who are in power now, never want to let go.
      Second problem: many of those who are not in power now want to get to power.
      Third problem: the rest either do not care or do not have means to force a change in their favor.
      Fourth problem: eventually those with means to force a change that will favor them will do so.

      There were and there are different attempts at stabilizing the system but monarchs get de-crowned, tyrants get killed, dictators get overthrown or just die of natural causes and the future then becomes uncertain. Revolutions are one way of moving from monarchy to some other type of government but the revolutionaries themselves while maybe good at organizing revolts get dehumanized to the point when any problem in front of them gets labeled as 'anti-revolutionary' and every incident of dissent is punished by death.

      Republics drown in corruption, stupidity, laziness and generally in selfishness and mediocrity, the population becomes lazy and stupid, easy to manipulate, these die of economic collapse because the masses expect too much while doing nothing and the governing body is not interested and is incapable of fixing the problem, the only goal that remains is self enrichment and other forms of entitlement.

      Democracies (don't know if there are really any) will suffer from general lack of education, knowledge and ability to see beyond the momentary problem at hand. Anarchy will help in destruction of society while economy will be destroyed by inability to reach any form of consensus.

      .

      As far as I am concerned the society cannot be stabilized forever, it will rise and collapse and economies will rise and collapse with societies. Of-course the problem is that with each iteration there are fewer and fewer resources that are untouched and replenished, but maybe this is a good thing in itself, each following society will have to become more and more technologically advanced to survive and feed itself without dying of its own exhaust and pollution.

      Basically I do not see that this is necessarily a problem for humanity as a whole that societies collapse but it is of-course a problem for individuals and families and at this point here, it is greed that will make some prosper and the other fail. Greed will have some of us accumulate enough resources that their personal space is fairly protected from the societal instabilities, the rest will fall. Greed is good for personal survival, bad for stability of society and probably is the only thing that really forces technological progress.

    108. Re:Big deal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the issue of corporate rights in Santa Clara was decided by a law clerk and not a Supreme Court judge, it really shouldn't be any trouble to overturn that aspect of the case.

      And arbiter dicta at that, IIRC. It's no so much finding that corporations are not people, but the 130 years of caselaw and statute that would unwind because of it.

      I'm all in favor of dealing with those problems, but the judiciary chooses to be so weak and deferential to the legislature, that I doubt it could happen.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    109. Re:Big deal by spun · · Score: 1

      You are arguing from a discredited position. I've offered evidence discounting greed as the major human motivation, and you haven't even addressed that. You keep arguing as if 'greed is good' is supported by evidence. It isn't.

      Greed is not the best for personal survival, cooperation is. Species that cooperate are more successful than those that don't. Nature is full of examples of cooperation, at least as much as it is full of examples of competition.

      Technological progress is not primarily brought about by greed. Scientists and engineers are not well paid. Someone wanting to make a lot of money would never enter those fields, they would go into a traditional business.

      'The Rest' don't just fall. People who are failing don't just lay down and die. They become desperate. So all of us have a vested interest in making sure others do not fail to the point that they become desperate enough to destabilize society. That takes cooperation. And seeing as how everyone benefits from a safety net regardless of whether they contribute, we are morally correct to force others to contribute to said safety net, or forgo the benefits of living in a civilized society.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    110. Re:Big deal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't consider that suicide; someone like that is dead already. Same with a soldier that falls on a grenade that goes in his foxhole, he's already dead, why not save his buddies?

    111. Re:Big deal by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I've offered evidence discounting greed as the major human motivation, and you haven't even addressed that.

      - but the weak and the uninterested in politics will not change the weather and even if they try to do so, they will be gone and the greedy will come or they will be corrupted, as we know power corrupts.

      Greed is not the best for personal survival, cooperation is. Species that cooperate are more successful than those that don't. Nature is full of examples of cooperation, at least as much as it is full of examples of competition.

      - however cooperation mostly stays 'in family' or 'in country' or 'in corporation' or whatever the club is. It's not cooperation where everyone is included, it's cooperation of peers, the rest can suck it, you know? Cooperation with the rest is going to be very one-sided: we produce and sell it to you, you consume, we make money you get things. Both of us are OK in this transaction, only you end up with some stuff you may or may not need and we end up with more money and power and we use that to control you.

      Technological progress is not primarily brought about by greed. Scientists and engineers are not well paid. Someone wanting to make a lot of money would never enter those fields, they would go into a traditional business.

      - scientists need a stable environment and money that the powerful elite (this includes government) will give them. Sciences are the means, not the end in the power struggle. Engineers wish they were well paid, after all, while science is a calling, engineering is a profession, you become an engineer to make money. Sure, you may love doing it, but you are doing it to make money. It's hard to get the status of an engineer and if you are just an independent tinkerer, you are not involved in the power-struggle and you don't need to be recognized by a professional institution to do what you love.

      'The Rest' don't just fall. People who are failing don't just lay down and die. They become desperate. So all of us have a vested interest in making sure others do not fail to the point that they become desperate enough to destabilize society. That takes cooperation. And seeing as how everyone benefits from a safety net regardless of whether they contribute, we are morally correct to force others to contribute to said safety net, or forgo the benefits of living in a civilized society.

      - it's all great until the economy is completely destroyed and there is no money in the system for any altruistic behavior at all, at this point the ones in power get to have the complete power to tell the rest exactly what to do (marshal law is the implementation of this).

      I believe that we cannot have a stable society that will be stable forever, that greed is the driving force of technological innovation and that our feelings do not matter if that is the end goal - advancing of technology. At the end, if the technological advances mean propagation of the species beyond this planet, then greed is the force that will lead to that regardless of how we feel.

    112. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to go with Johnson & Johnson. Remember when it was discovered that someone had been slipping cyanide into Tylenol bottles? Remember when they recalled ALL of their stock, at their expense, even when chances were it was localized to Chicago?

      Their first priority was to protect the people, their second was to save the product line.

      Apparently when you have a company that has values and promotes them, it's not actually so hard to do the right thing. It's just not as good press as doing the wrong thing.

      http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%20Johnson.htm

    113. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've offered evidence discounting greed as the major human motivation, and you haven't even addressed that.

      - but the weak and the uninterested in politics will not change the weather and even if they try to do so, they will be gone and the greedy will come or they will be corrupted, as we know power corrupts.

      Greed is not the best for personal survival, cooperation is. Species that cooperate are more successful than those that don't. Nature is full of examples of cooperation, at least as much as it is full of examples of competition.

      - however cooperation mostly stays 'in family' or 'in country' or 'in corporation' or whatever the club is. It's not cooperation where everyone is included, it's cooperation of peers, the rest can suck it, you know? Cooperation with the rest is going to be very one-sided: we produce and sell it to you, you consume, we make money you get things. Both of us are OK in this transaction, only you end up with some stuff you may or may not need and we end up with more money and power and we use that to control you.

      Technological progress is not primarily brought about by greed. Scientists and engineers are not well paid. Someone wanting to make a lot of money would never enter those fields, they would go into a traditional business.

      - scientists need a stable environment and money that the powerful elite (this includes government) will give them. Sciences are the means, not the end in the power struggle. Engineers wish they were well paid, after all, while science is a calling, engineering is a profession, you become an engineer to make money. Sure, you may love doing it, but you are doing it to make money. It's hard to get the status of an engineer and if you are just an independent tinkerer, you are not involved in the power-struggle and you don't need to be recognized by a professional institution to do what you love.

      'The Rest' don't just fall. People who are failing don't just lay down and die. They become desperate. So all of us have a vested interest in making sure others do not fail to the point that they become desperate enough to destabilize society. That takes cooperation. And seeing as how everyone benefits from a safety net regardless of whether they contribute, we are morally correct to force others to contribute to said safety net, or forgo the benefits of living in a civilized society.

      - it's all great until the economy is completely destroyed and there is no money in the system for any altruistic behavior at all, at this point the ones in power get to have the complete power to tell the rest exactly what to do (marshal law is the implementation of this).

      I believe that we cannot have a stable society that will be stable forever, that greed is the driving force of technological innovation and that our feelings do not matter if that is the end goal - advancing of technology. At the end, if the technological advances mean propagation of the species beyond this planet, then greed is the force that will lead to that regardless of how we feel.

      The strong and the slutty get STDs. Keep gettin' greedy yo!

  7. TERMINATION by gbarules2999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He'll be back.

    1. Re:TERMINATION by gavron · · Score: 1

      I hope so. He hasn't been kicked around at all. He can claim he did fine and the market / court system / other evil lawyers "done' did me in." I want him back so he can take his licking.

    2. Re:TERMINATION by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Yep. He just needs to spend endless years in litigation to get his position back.
      He loves an exercise in futility.

      --
      J
  8. He'll land on his feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a track record like that, who wouldn't want to hire him!

    His unmatched ability to ruin a legit business and substitute it with litigation will impress banks and insurance companies the world over.

    1. Re:He'll land on his feet by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but asshattery of the Darl McBride variety has been rewarded more often than not.

    2. Re:He'll land on his feet by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You laugh, but asshattery of the Darl McBride variety has been rewarded more often than not.

      How do people think that someone becomes CEO to begin with?

    3. Re:He'll land on his feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do people think that someone becomes CEO to begin with?

      $60 and an application to a state within the United States? That's all it took me.

  9. A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    For some background, Darl McBride was the CEO who saw the Linux company SCO through some of the hardest times the company ever went through. As CEO, McBride redefined SCO so as to make it one of the most talked-about computer companies ever. His leadership pushed the SCO reputation to limits most companies never reach.

    SCO is a company for the history books nowadays, but just a few years ago it was one of the most influential companies around, garnering interest and vile from MS and a host of Linux vendors. They will be missed.

    1. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Gruturo · · Score: 5, Funny

      They will be missed.

      Just keep firing.

      --

      Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
    2. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make an analogy, SCO is like a car that stalled on the highway. But instead of trying to fix it, Darl McBride took out an assault rifle and started shooting at passing cars.

    3. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by furby076 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Darl called. He wants to thank you for this verbiage will be utilized in his resume'.

      Once he puts it down on his resume' he is going to sue you for copyright infringement.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    4. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by swrona · · Score: 1

      You'd better cache this thread so you can claim "Prior Art" when his lawyers come knocking!

      --
      -=Steve
    5. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What crack have you been smokin'

      I've been following Caldera/SCO since 2000. From 2000 to 2009, SCO was not the most influential company, nor did SCO gain vile from Microsoft or other linux vendors. In fact Microsoft purchased and SCO Source license, after SCO launched it's lawsuit againt IBM and other Linux vendors. Other Linux vendors hated SCO because of the lawsuit against them not because of their product. SCO was not the envy of anyone.

      So even before their lawsuit, SCO was maybe 3rd among the Linux distributions (Red Hat, Suse) from 2000 to 2002. After that they weren't even an after thought.

    6. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Linux company SCO

      What the fuck?

    7. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Improv · · Score: 1

      I was going to respond to this, but when I look at it closely, I understand the deeper humour in what you're saying. Bravo!

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    8. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

      Erm... Linux company? Try Unix :-)

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    9. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      What is now SCO used to be called Caldera, one of the first Linux companies. The old Unix (Xenix) company SCO is now Tarantella.

    10. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      His leadership pushed the SCO reputation to limits most companies never reach

      You've been reading the Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous Recommendations, haven't you?

    11. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Leitenant: "Fire at will!"

      William: "NO! NO! FIRE AT DARL!!!!"

    12. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      You really needed to round that off with "you'll be incredibly lucky to get Darl working for you."

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    13. Re:A lot of newer slashbots won't know of him by ignavus · · Score: 1

      SCO is a company for the history books nowadays, but just a few years ago it was one of the most influential companies around, garnering interest and vile from MS and a host of Linux vendors. They will be missed.

      You left out:

      SCO was so influential in the IT industry that it inspired a highly popular website devoted to them, a website called Groklaw. The memory of SCO lives on. It will not be forgotten as long as Groklaw continues.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  10. Best publicist EVAR by Captain+Spam · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, they fired the best publicist in the history of the company, perhaps one of the best in the history of the tech industry? Why on EARTH would they do that? Now they've got nothing left!

    Or have I just been brainwashed by the "no such thing as bad publicity" crowd?

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:Best publicist EVAR by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know about that. I kinda lean towards the Former Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (AKA Baghdad Bob)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Best publicist EVAR by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      This is the guy that killed any credability the company had, drove away their userbase, fired their engineers, killed any chance of SCO ever making honest profit again, singlehandedly turned his own and the company's name into something synonymous with evil, and kept taking multimillion dollar performance bonusses even when the company was heading into bankrupcy, and you think he was good for SCO? wow.

    3. Re:Best publicist EVAR by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      After reading your description of what he did, I am now picturing him as a chauvinist who saw what Carly Fiorina did at HP and said 'she's only a woman - I can do much better than that!' And then did.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Best publicist EVAR by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Carly then went on to help destroy McCain's political campaign... so at least she has that going for her.

    5. Re:Best publicist EVAR by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Wow, do I miss Comical Ali.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  11. Did the Gun Help? by dcollins · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."

    So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,595047068,00.html?pg=1

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      fitting punishment for all mcbrides misdeeds is for him to live in paranoia. Hope he suffers relentlessly. Even funnier is that I expect nobody likes him, but no one is actually out to hurt him physically.

    2. Re:Did the Gun Help? by s-whs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > "An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."

      > So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?

      I wonder more why anyone at Harvard law school would invite, and even listen to him?

      Yes, it is of course just part of the wonders of modern society, where a sociopath can keep on messing up society via influential positions he gets via friends (i.e. fellow sociopaths). Isn't it great?

    3. Re:Did the Gun Help? by nomadic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."

      Which is a pretty sad commentary. For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives? He sued IBM and Novell, and he made the state of linux licensing slightly (very slightly) uncertain. Uncertainty, in the grand scheme of things, is not the worst thing in the world, but you'd think he committed genocide if you read slashdot.

    4. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want my mod points back. Parent +1 Insightful.

    5. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He tried to appropriate the hard work of the community, scam people and organisations out of protection^H^H^H^H license money and sully the name of FOSS in general. All the while raking in money hand over fist and obstructing the legal process at every turn.

      I very much doubt he needs to fear for his own safety, but yes, he is actually a first degree asshole.

    6. Re:Did the Gun Help? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There was about a year where SCO loomed as a very large threat. So yes, there was a time when McBride deserved the ill will he received not just here, but in many places. After it became clear that SCO literally had nothing at all, it became more of a joke. Now it's just kind of pathetic to watch as the whole thing implodes, so I certainly could care less what happened to him. If I were a shareholder, however...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Did the Gun Help? by caerwyn · · Score: 1

      You assume that his statements aren't mere paranoia. I don't have any evidence either way, to be honest, but it's worth considering.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    8. Re:Did the Gun Help? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?

      No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide. One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      If you could care less then that would mean that you have at least a slight interest.

      I presume you wanted to say "I certainly couldn't care less" which, if you care to actually read the sentence, means your level of of interest is so low that you just can't be any less interested.

      Really, why is that so hard to understand for native English speakers? I'm not a native speaker, but I don't have any problems grasping such simple language concepts.

    10. Re:Did the Gun Help? by linuxguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting. Its not very common for me to run into a Darl McBride sympathizer. The man after all is one of the worst scums the Linux community has ever encountered. He probably is the most hated man in technology. And you don't attain that title for just causing some uncertainty in the market.

      The man lied and continued to lie for years. Filed frivolous lawsuits and dragged innocent people into court for years. And illegally pumped his company's worthless stock so that it could be dumped on unsuspecting investors. Essentially called all Linux users thieves and told them that he was coming for them. The list of his crimes and his victim is very long. And there are two suicides related to this case. You do not appear to have followed this scum as closely as many others here. This guy is a con artist of the highest order.

    11. Re:Did the Gun Help? by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's so interesting being grammar flamed. Makes one think the flamer may have a good command of a language, but is so worthless, pathetic and without relevance that they might as well not know any language at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Did the Gun Help? by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is of course just part of the wonders of modern society, where a sociopath can keep on messing up society via influential positions he gets via friends (i.e. fellow sociopaths). Isn't it great?

      Sociopaths rule the world. It won't ever change. Get used to it.

    13. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Virak · · Score: 1

      You're making the assumption that his fear of people killing him is reasonable and he's not just utterly fucking batshit insane (which would explain a lot, actually).

    14. Re:Did the Gun Help? by junklight · · Score: 1

      Assuming it is true.

      Darl McBride also said "We counted over a million lines of code that we allege are infringed in the Linux kernel today" which strangely enough they still haven't shown to anyone.

    15. Re:Did the Gun Help? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      The gun is only a backup weapon. His primary sidearm is a family-sized bar of Dial that can drop a FOSS hippie at 100 yards.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    16. Re:Did the Gun Help? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically, that's not a grammar flame, that's a semantic flame. The sentence "I could care less" is grammatically correct - it's the content that's wrong. And for me, my biggest language pet peeve ever. I have to do mental gymnastics every time someone says it to make sure that the topic really isn't important to them, and that they didn't mean what the sentence means: that it matters an indeterminate amount.

      And now, we return to your regular slashdot programming of flames, rants and internet fights.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    17. Re:Did the Gun Help? by jggimi · · Score: 1

      Lets see, there's 12 million lines or so now, so that would be every 12th line, then.

    18. Re:Did the Gun Help? by greed · · Score: 1

      His lawsuit and license threats kept our customers from switching over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. Consequently, we have to support a mish-mash of HP-UX, AIX, and Solaris (on two CPUs). Linux is finally catching on, but it's been delayed, and gave Solaris on Intel an edge it did not deserve, which has us running duplicate systems that shouldn't be necessary, and duplicate test load.

      I'm also left wondering if OpenSolaris is licensed correctly, given who Sun bought some of the licenses from. That, however, I don't have to worry about professionally, as our customers won't run an OS without a big, juicy support contract.

    19. Re:Did the Gun Help? by raddan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Eh, it's like when my legal studies professor brought a Worcester attorney into our classroom to talk about his experiences. The prof told him to be totally honest. The lawyer was, like, "Really? Well... OK." and proceeded to tell the class all about the bribery, secret handshakes, personal agendas, and legal gimmicks that actually make the world (or, Worcester anyway) go round. As a student, it was very enlightening. It also totally crushed my desire to ever be an attorney.

    20. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally

      I don't think "society" is a requirement for that

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    21. Re:Did the Gun Help? by RManning · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide.

      Oh man, so close to a Godwin and yet you didn't go all the way!

    22. Re:Did the Gun Help? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      They just needed a sample/example so the students can learn to spot sociopaths in the wild (wouldn't want them to terminate a real human by accident).

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    23. Re:Did the Gun Help? by msimm · · Score: 1

      Pffft! Linux guys don't kill people! (unless they work on file systems)

      He'll be safe.

      --
      Quack, quack.
    24. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?

      Yes. He pretty badly messed up the business I had at the time, because too many people took his threats seriously. Probably cost me a million-dollar deal.

    25. Re:Did the Gun Help? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Comparing people to Hitler is so 1950s

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you're a libertarian.

    27. Re:Did the Gun Help? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a sympathizer. I am simply stating that, especially on slashdot, people exaggerate the severity of what he did.

      The man lied and continued to lie for years. Filed frivolous lawsuits and dragged innocent people into court for years. And illegally pumped his company's worthless stock so that it could be dumped on unsuspecting investors. Essentially called all Linux users thieves and told them that he was coming for them. The list of his crimes and his victim is very long.

      Yes, all true, and those actions, while immoral and illegal, come close to warranting death. There are a few hundred thousand people in prison whose crimes were a hell of a lot worse.

    28. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right! And I'm Vint Cerf.

    29. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Eevee · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's not a semantic flame, it's a lack of understanding on your part flame. There's this thing called sarcasm. Until you understand that things can mean the opposite of what you would expect, this will baffle you.

      Just to help you out: Little John was the largest of the Merry Men, Fat chance means hardly any chance at all, and you speak English very well...

    30. Re:Did the Gun Help? by hol · · Score: 1

      For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?

      No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide. One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally.

      So you're saying you should control people just because you can? Because that's how it reads. And Rwanda happened because of inaction - as in saying you care, but doing nothing.

      If he has a permit, he's free to carry. If he feels he need a body guard, he can have one if he can afford one. I am sure there are plenty of investors that feel stiffed by his use of their money.

      --
      - - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
    31. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      The sentence "I could care less" is grammatically correct - it's the content that's wrong. And for me, my biggest language pet peeve ever.

      No, it's not a semantic error. He is simply leaving out a portion of the sentence. "I could care less [than anyone imagines]". You are assuming that he means something completely different, adding a "negative" into the sentence. But it seems in either case, we arrive at the same conclusion - that he really doesn't care much.

      It's very common to leave out parts of sentences, just as you did, in your critique that I have quoted, above, and highlighted in bold. I was left thinking "your biggest pet peeve ever DID WHAT?"

    32. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be why I tend to say, "I could care less, but it would likely require some sort of surgery."

    33. Re:Did the Gun Help? by hol · · Score: 1

      So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?

      I don't understand why he would, and he didn't, or else we'd have heard about it on CNN. It's probably facetious on your part, or you're ignorant about non-gangsta's with guns.

      Law-abiding gun owners (and unless proven otherwise, he's still law-abiding) don't wave those things around, you know.

      --
      - - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
    34. Re:Did the Gun Help? by jd · · Score: 1

      Harvard Law School was investigating the correct legal interpretation of criminally insane. Darl was exhibit A.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    35. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is a pretty sad commentary.

      Commentary on what? Darl's mental state?

      Has anyone actually ever threatened Darl? Did anyone even pay a professional to track down Darl?

      Or did Darl just assume that his enemies would lower themselves to his own level of action? Is Darl just afraid that there are people like himself out there who now have an ax to grind? Is this just one more evidence of a life conducted within a fantastic imagination?

    36. Re:Did the Gun Help? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So next question is: does he deserve to die for that?

    37. Re:Did the Gun Help? by martyros · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the main point of the lawsuits themselves: to spread FUD and limit the adoption of Linux.

      One of the main reasons Novell signed its MS deal was that there were so many people who actually believed that Linux was risky, specifically because of what SCO did. That directly impacts Linux vendors (RedHat, Novell, IBM, &c) and their potential customers, businesses who could have saved money, had more reliable servers, and lower MS lock-in. The trickle-down effects of that are much wider: any Linux developer or Linux user is thus a little poorer because of that, as is anyone who ever used any service by any of the companies that might have used Linux but didn't (i.e., basically everyone). Then add the network effects (or lack thereof) for Linux, which would have meant a wider adoption of desktop linux and weakening of the MS stranglehold.

      The sum of all of those negative consequences, though each one may look small, is really huge. There's a reason MS invested in the company, and it paid off big-time.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    38. Re:Did the Gun Help? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you're confusing sarcasm, satire, irony, clarity of speech and idioms. Quite a feat.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    39. Re:Did the Gun Help? by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      Dunno you tell me, couple thousand years ago we chopped off people's hands if they stole a piece of bread...

    40. Re:Did the Gun Help? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      If anything's left out, it is the "not". The expression that was common until the past few years was "I couldn't care less." It has now morphed into "I could care less" which isn't that much of an issue during speech. Speech isn't expected to be grammatically correct, and we fill in words and structures right and left when listening to people speak.

      In writing, however, it becomes a major distraction, as the expectation is that writing is clear and follows accepted rules. Not to mention that the original author is not there to provide answers to any questions that might be had.

      As for your bolded example, you're spot on. It is grammatically incorrect, and leads to confusion. This is generally what happens when speech gets transcribed exactly into writing: it generates incoherent text.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    41. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Funny

      I advocate any form of violence against anyone.

      I would, however, like to see him prosecuted, and be justly stripped of his riches, and to do a long stint behind bars. And Mr. Yarro too.

    42. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

      Let's kick that horse some more...

      "I could care less" means that one does care. On a scale of 1 to 10, "Could" would be a 5. "I couldn't care less" would be a 0.

    43. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      It's not paranoia, just yet another ego trip. "I'm so important they want to blow me away!" No Darl, you little turd, we want to see you live the rest of your hopefully long, long life as the insignificant worm you really are. That's a fitting punishment for egomaniacs.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    44. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, so close to a Godwin and yet you didn't go all the way!

      Fuck you and all the other morons who toss Godwin about without understanding what it really means (do your own fucking homework).

      A clever saying proves nothing -- Voltaire.

      Nor does an ignorant, wiseass one.

    45. Re:Did the Gun Help? by sgage · · Score: 1

      Guns don't kill people.

      BULLETS kill people.

    46. Re:Did the Gun Help? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "He probably is the most hated man in technology."

      I'll bet most technical folks not involved with Linux never heard of the guy.

    47. Re:Did the Gun Help? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Did anyone even pay a professional to track down Darl?"

      That depends on where you stand on the issue of who develops FOSS, basement-dwellers or paid professionals?

    48. Re:Did the Gun Help? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "Which is a pretty sad commentary. For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?"

      You miss the point. Presumably he's lying about all that stuff -- gun, guard, lecture, phone calls, everything. That's what people like him do. On the day they actually came to take his position away he slunk off quietly, like a whipped dog.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    49. Re:Did the Gun Help? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Presumably he's lying about all that stuff -- gun, guard, lecture, phone calls, everything. That's what people like him do.

      I have no doubt that he's received death threats. I would think that all of them are probably not credible, but I guess he feels better safe than sorry.

    50. Re:Did the Gun Help? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Agree most heartily. Godwin fascists eat shit and die.

    51. Re:Did the Gun Help? by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      Oh man, so close to a Godwin and yet you didn't go all the way!

      Yesh. Do you have to be such a Godwin Nazi?

    52. Re:Did the Gun Help? by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      > I'll bet most technical folks not involved with Linux never heard of the guy.

      Mostly true. However, can you name another person in tech who you think beats Darl McBride for the title of the most hated man in tech. There may some people who are long dead that may vouch for that title, but among the people alive today, I think Darl will win.

    53. Re:Did the Gun Help? by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the quick overview. I had just assumed he was maligned here because he was a Republican or something...

    54. Re:Did the Gun Help? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That is what many other people thought as well.

      But it takes only one madman to make a murder - for example the murder of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. He was popular at the time, but had also many opponents. But no-one ever thought anyone would come out and hurt him. He did not have a bodyguard even as far as I know. Violence in Dutch politics is as good as unheard of. Still he got killed - it took just one madman to do so.

      Or a bit closer to your home: John F. Kennedy. Depending on which conspiracy theory you believe, it took only one madman with a gun to take him out. Just one was enough.

      McBride lives in one of the countries with the largest number of firearms in the population. A country with one of the highest numbers of murders and violence rates. Not many people will be actually out to kill him, but it takes only one. Just one. One crazy guy with a gun in his hands, and it's over for Mr McBride. And that guy has made vast numbers of enemies, so I'm not surprised he's paranoid and has bodyguards with him.

    55. Re:Did the Gun Help? by madsdyd · · Score: 1

      For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives? He sued IBM and Novell, and he made the state of linux licensing slightly (very slightly) uncertain.

      Yes, that impacted my life negatively. The FUD influenced a lot of companies to hold back on Linux adoption at a critical point in time. This in turn, reduced the value of e.g. my knowledge and skills. So, yes, it did. And, this was most likely completely intentional from MS/SCOs side.

    56. Re:Did the Gun Help? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Only problem with your analysis is that Pim Fortuyn was someone actually important.

    57. Re:Did the Gun Help? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It's not that far off! Pim Fortuyn was important for about 16 mln people - the Dutch population. Of which of course only a small minority is politically active. Outside of The Netherlands he didn't really matter.

      Darl McBride is important for the Linux community and a whole lot of related businesses - hard to put a number on it but the Linux community alone can easily be 10-20 mln people. /. alone has well over a million registered users, and that million is what you could call "politically active" when it comes to the Linux community. People that care enough to register a user name and presumably comment on stories (why else register, after all).

      So the number of people that REALLY care, that care enough to at least speak up (not counting the relatively passive and anonymous act of voting) is in the same order of magnitude for McBride and Fortuyn. With the difference that McBride lives in a country with a far more violent culture.

    58. Re:Did the Gun Help? by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

      So what action besides writing about something that you care about have you taken about the Rwandan genocide once u found out about it and what action will you take now that McBride is gone, to, presumably, prevent future McBrides from repeating?

      I am not being facetious or mocking - but when someone says they care, which is a word that describes empathic feelings, I find that people do not do much past just saying "I care...". Eg I care to see Obama's healthcare reform get passed. Thus I call those iwe voted in office who can actually do something about the bill's passage, as well as donated 50 to OFA.

      I love to see people care but what really moves me is when one does a bit more than just expressing their views on a board where the impact is minimal to nonexistent.

      --
      'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  12. Raising additional funding by millwall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The Company is also looking to raise additional funding and sell non-core assets"

    Translation: The company is looking at further litigation, and selling off all software development divisions.

    1. Re:Raising additional funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't even need to "translate". The next sentence in the TFPressRelease reads:

      These actions will allow the Trustee to preserve cash and the value of the business while enabling the Company to proceed with asset sales, pursue litigation against, among others, IBM and Novell

      (emphasis mine)

    2. Re:Raising additional funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with Darl's termination, those corporate priorities get sent home in a cardboard box, along with the nameplate on his office door.

  13. Knowing how this has gone... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He'll probably just get a cushy job with his buddy Mr. Yarrow's merry band of censorship enthusiasts.

    1. Re:Knowing how this has gone... by raddan · · Score: 1

      Wow. That link is just disgusting.

    2. Re:Knowing how this has gone... by trentfoley · · Score: 1

      cp80.org opened my eyes to a startling truth:

      There is not nearly enough porn on the internet.

      I saw three of their ads on the site. The first discussed the total number of porn web pages on the internet. The second described how old a child would be if it were to look at every porn image on the internet. The third showed how many children in the US have been exposed to internet porn.

      Regarding the first ad, a stack of only 15 miles if each page were printed? I'd like to see the technology they use to print video. I believe that my personal collection would more than double that stack. Granted, there are certain frames in any given video that are not pornographic, but who looks at those :)

      The ad showing the child morph in to an old man while watching porn, one image for every 10 minutes, informs us the he'd be 485.227 years old when done! This is indeed a problem that must be addressed. The obvious solution is to spend one year training the child to interpret images in rapid succession in order to allow him to watch one image every second. That would let him succeed in his mission in a mere 9.74 months.

      Finally, take a look at the picture of the kid on the ad for the number of children exposed to internet porn. I've never seen such a happy, inquisitive looking child. Great picture. Makes me feel like we are all doing something right.

      </badjoke>

  14. Goodbye sweet prince by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm uninstalling my Caldera Desktop in protest.

  15. One Word... by Stupid+Crunt · · Score: 1

    KARMA.

    1. Re:One Word... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, McBride IS a troll. -1 for him!

  16. So when is SCO going to Die by lonestarw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess the question is when is SCO going to die? I know it is close to Halloween but this is one zombie that needs a bullet in the head!!

    1. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are mixing metaphors. Zombies need to be dismembered, werewolves need to be shot in the head (silver-bullet theory).

      Unless said bullet causes the head to im/explode, it may be less effective than fully severing the head completely. This also lowers the chance of accidental infection.

    2. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1
      I guess the question is when is SCO going to die? I know it is close to Halloween but this is one zombie that needs a bullet in the head!!

      Just one? Rule #2 dude, Double tap. Else we are going to have another Amiga running around.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it's still necessary for SCO to die. It depends on what their next step is. It would be interesting if what they cast off was the litigation side, and what they decided to concentrate on is producing a product. Wait wait wait, stop laughing, I didn't (necessarily) mean that as a joke. What would be the industry's reaction if the remains of SCO actually decided to enter the business of product development? Have they blown their credibility so bad that there's no turning back? Or could they survive as a (very small) software company?

      "SCO" is just a name. It's a name with a nasty history, but it's the people, not the company, that made it what it was. With different people in charge, it might serve a positive role in the industry.

      Nah...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by domatic · · Score: 1

      Given how they wanted to feed off the hard work of Linux developers, companies, and users my method of choice would a stake through the heart in the center of a crossroads just prior to daybreak.

    5. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by jd · · Score: 1

      If you use a hollowed-out silver bullet that's filled with holy water and has an explosive tip, you kill the zombie and the silver fragments'll get any nearby werewolves.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:So when is SCO going to Die by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      I guess the question is when is SCO going to die? I know it is close to Halloween but this is one zombie that needs a bullet in the head!!

      I honestly thought they would be gone within a year of hitting the pink sheets. Right now they're on the we-may-actually-own-the-copyright-to-unix-after-all respirator, I'm just waiting for someone to pull the plug on that one.

      I think most people expected them to be existentially challenged at this point .. yet they keep on living.

  17. Sad by acaiberryblast2 · · Score: 0

    This is sad but I wish him good luck!

  18. =~ s/terminate/execute/gi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, fixed it for ya.

  19. Good bye loser! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The good part of this is that he stuck around long enough to run the company into the ground!

    kill -9 `pgrep darl_mc_bride`

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Good bye loser! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps his next job will be at Microsoft. That company is in need of self destructive management.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Good bye loser! by raddan · · Score: 1

      If you have pgrep, you probably also have pkill. Just:

      pkill -9 darl_mc_bride

    3. Re:Good bye loser! by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps his next job will be at Microsoft. That company is in need of self destructive management.

      "Perhaps his next job will be at Microsoft. That company is in need of more self destructive management."

      Fixed that for ya. Don't go selling Ballmer short.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    4. Re:Good bye loser! by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just use pkill if you already have pgrep?

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  20. Shame it wasn't for real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it wasn't a real termination...oh well "the boot" is a step in the right direction I suppose!

  21. Someone should remake the Three Stooges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with caricatures of Darl McBride, Jack Thompson, and Fred Phelps.

  22. Let's all sing along with the Munchkins! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Ding, dong, the witch is dead! Which old witch? The wicked witch! Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  23. Not quite into the ground by davebarnes · · Score: 1

    The stock (SCOXQ) is at 13 cents.
    I still don't understand how it could have value other than zero.

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
    1. Re:Not quite into the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chairs in the boardroom might have some value. There might also be some rolls of toilet paper in the washroom, although it's possible that Darl took it with him when he left.

    2. Re:Not quite into the ground by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative

      The SCO stock last traded at 13 cents. That does not mean that anyone will buy for 13 cents. Volume is less than 5000 shares a day, you can see the individual trades in the chart. In fact the main reason people would buy SCO at this point is because they had previously sold the stock short and want to buy to cover so they can recognize the profit this tax year rather than be forced to recognize the profit when the company goes bankrupt. Looks to me like today's trading means that someone paid $700 to close a SCO short. After that there are probably a bunch of pump and dump scammers out there and folk who recon that maybe IBM will decide its cheaper to buy SCO out than continue litigation. The price of a single share is not the same as the proportional value of the company, nor should it be. Real companies do not increase or decrease in value by 10% in a single day. The market prices of shares can over or under value the company significantly. At $13 a share the marketcap of SCO is about $2.5M. That is more than the company is worth but less than you would need to pay to buy the company.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Not quite into the ground by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      There are people who have taken short positions and long positions and they actually need the security to close their positions etc. Since almost everyone else has lost interest in the whole thing, you need to pay the equivalent of "shipping and handling" to the market maker to get share certificates. Mostly no one holds the certs, so it will all end up as making proper entries in the stock registrars like Pershing' computers and data bases. That explains the nonzero value for these shares.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Not quite into the ground by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      At $13 a share the marketcap of SCO is about $2.5M. That is more than the company is worth but less than you would need to pay to buy the company.

      Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    5. Re:Not quite into the ground by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In IBM's terms, the money involved for them to litigate SCO isn't terribly substantial. However, the damage they did to IBM's reputation and some of IBM's investments wasn't trivial. SCO has even claimed to be able to terminate IBM's rights in AIX. IBM isn't after a quick end to the litigation. They are after vindication and making an example out of SCO to deter any other pipsqueaks from peeing in their Wheaties. Buying them out even at this late degraded date only rewards them.

    6. Re:Not quite into the ground by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

      why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act?

      Because IBM is a big pockets corp. They have a policy of defending against bogus IP suits rather than buying them off - because if they ever bought one off they'd be inundated with more.

      Thus they and the legal system have played "mill of the gods" to SCO's grain and ground them slowly but exceedingly fine.

      Now that SCO is in receivership and their antagonist-in-chief is in the unemployment line, they MAY consider their point proven. Or they may continue to grind until every i is dotted and t is crossed in the legal record - and any remaining stockholders (who should have known better and restrained Darryl, rather than cheering him on and hoping for a piece of IBM) are perhaps left with zero.

      Their call.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Not quite into the ground by IIH · · Score: 1

      Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.

      At a guess:
      a) Precedent. They don't want anyone getting the idea that suing them for the "right" amount (i.e. low enough) will result in a payoff
      b) Cost. is probably not a large factor, as they're ibm lawyers anyway, I believe, and even if costs are incurred, I'm sure they're prefer to pay this money to their legal team than to the shareholders of the company on the other side of the litigation.
      c) Logistics/legality, I'm not sure if it would be as straightforward as you suggest, as unless you have 100% of the shares, there are laws that protect minority shareholders, so it might be difficult to drop the case from the sco side without opening a can of worms from any remaining shareholders. (and there would doubtless be a few that refuse to sell if the above happened, hoping (somewhat logically) that if they were prepared to buy out the whole company to avoid litigation costs, that they would do the same for the last few shares for the same reason.

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
    8. Re:Not quite into the ground by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Real companies do not increase or decrease in value by 10% in a single day

      Oh, really? I guess you weren't on the planet this time last year.

      SCO crashed, luckily all by itself.

    9. Re:Not quite into the ground by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Considering the investment in the legal action to date, it costs IBM very little to keep their lawyers on this until SCO is finally dismantled. I doubt very much we will see much in the way of court action over the IP claims, so there's no particular reason not to keep the battle (such as it now is) going. As you observe, smashing SCO to pieces sends the message out that IBM will not be held hostage by IP trolls.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Not quite into the ground by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Don't forget plain old revenge. SCO has pissed off several suits at IBM and they want to take SCO down just for the sake of it.

    11. Re:Not quite into the ground by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "They have a policy of defending against bogus IP suits"

      And most probably a policy of defending against legitimate IP suits as well, don't you think?

    12. Re:Not quite into the ground by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't see IBM smashing SCO is good PR outside of the Linux community. Sounds more like the actions of a predatory monopoly to the casual observer.

    13. Re:Not quite into the ground by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And most probably a policy of defending against legitimate IP suits as well, don't you think?

      If the suit is legitimate the best strategy is to settle quickly for a reasonable royalty or an IP swap and small lump sum (for a little guy or a competing big guy respectively) rather than risk a large judgment and an injunction against shipping more product and supporting their user base.

      I don't know that IBM follows this strategy. But I haven't seen any stories (or heard any rumors) in the last couple decades about IBM grinding a little guy down with big lawyers - or losing to one, either.

      If the suit is legit and the potential damages are not chump change the little guys can get some big guns in court on a contingency basis. The law firm gets a sizable piece if they win it but the little guy gets even more. Or some up-and-coming lawyer gets maybe a third AND makes his rep as a giant-killer. No guarantee the court will render a correct judgement when the big guns are firing. But they try hard to get it right. The little guys certainly win enough that trying to crush them all is 'way risky.

      Other companies HAVE such a public history. Recall Robert_Kearns, the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, had it usurped by the auto companies, sued, and won big time. Or Sears, which was accused of stealing the design for a nifty folding carpentry workbench from its inventor but defended and won.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    14. Re:Not quite into the ground by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      There is more to IP than just Linux. Now re-read GP's post.

    15. Re:Not quite into the ground by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      If you have a point, please make it.

  24. Chris Sontag by ichthus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now, they just need to get rid of Chris Sontag, who publicly brags that he was the architect behind the attack on Linux in the media. A company I used to work for hired him temporarily for business development. On his first day there, he actually thought he'd earn points from the software engineers by telling us about his attack on Linux. Needless to say, he didn't last very long at our company, where we primarily used Linux as our dev platform.

    --
    sig: sauer
  25. Job search licence by Rolgar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Darl McBride:

    I would like to interview you for a position I have. The application requires a licence that costs just $699.

    Signed,

    All future potential employers

    1. Re:Job search licence by kaputtfurleben · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why do people keep referring to a price of $699?

    2. Re:Job search licence by laron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SCO basically claimed to own the rights UNIX (incl LINUX) and kindly offered not to sue companies using it, if they paid 699$ per installation. For details, check groklaw.net.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    3. Re:Job search licence by kimvette · · Score: 1

      $699 per processor per installation.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  26. The Ha Ha is on YOU! by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe SCO got rid of Darl because the company doesn't need an executive any more. It needs a lawyer to manage litigation, because the big lawsuit (such as it is) is the only asset of SCO.

    If you're not making, only suing, then it makes sense that your corporate boss should just be a lawyer to manage the lawsuit.

    SCO's new slogan: "We're a big, lean litigating machine!"

    1. Re:The Ha Ha is on YOU! by MrSenile · · Score: 1

      It also gives SCO a bit of fair movement now. They can conveniently lose paperwork stating that Darrell 'misplaced it' or 'took it'. But now they can say 'Hey, we're not at fault, we fired Darrell, what more do you want from us?'.

      Meanwhile, Darrell can sit even prettier because when any litigation goes to him, he can play 'Ok? Prove it' and when they go to SCO they say 'oh dear, we seem to not have any of that paperwork. Pity us'.

      Darrell becomes more scott free, SCO becomes more scott free, and big business wins again.

      I'm sure with enough litigation the right proof can be found, but after how much time? how much money? Will 'those who care' feel it worth the loss of money to pursue it? Most likely not.

  27. Other way round? by mseeger · · Score: 1

    I think Darl McBride terminated SCO, only then SCO fired Darl McBride.

  28. He was a kind and generous man.... by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Funny

    As Voltaire put it: "He was a kind and generous man. Provided of course that he is really dead." Uhm, not dead yet? Just laid off? What a pity...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  29. Yay by invisik · · Score: 1

    Finally. Too bad even that can't save the company. Not that anyone cares.

    -m

    --
    http://www.invisik.com
  30. It was about time... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Nuff said!

  31. What is the sad commentary? by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is a pretty sad commentary.

    What, that he thinks people are out to get him and that carrying a gun will make a difference if they are? That he thinks it's something to brag about?

    The quoted text didn't indicate that he had any rational reason to take those actions.

    I mean, really... I've had death threats from disagreeing with someone on Usenet about technical details of the process of creating new groups. This is the Internet, that kind of thing happens. You can't take it seriously.

  32. The Church and suicide by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know a devout orthodox Christian family that suffered a suicide of one of its members. One of the worst parts for them was the way that the church that they'd been part of, and served, for all of their lives turned away from them.

    1. Re:The Church and suicide by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I know a devout orthodox Christian family that suffered a suicide of one of its members. One of the worst parts for them was the way that the church that they'd been part of, and served, for all of their lives turned away from them.

      This is the kind of story that contributes to me really doubting the veracity of Christianity.

      Theoretically, all Christians are influenced by the Holy Spirit. But I'm pretty much not seeing them act any better than non-Christians when the chips are down.

    2. Re:The Church and suicide by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One Christian community's behaviour does not necessarily indicate how others will act, especially given the incredibly wide variety of "flavours" of Christianity.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:The Church and suicide by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad. But too often true. All one needs to do is read the book of Job (the one in the Bible, not Apple CEO), to see this.

      As a congregational leader, it is tempting to sit in judgment when bad things happen to good people. It is also easy to marvel when good things happen to bad people.

      However, I teach that these things are as much a test of character as anything. I'm not one who can judge another, because simply it is not my job description.

      As tempting as it may seem, we should instead focus on what we can do with what we have, to build up and bless(Order, Peace, Joy) this world we live in; leaving it better than when we found it.

      But hey, what do I know? I'm a wacko religious nutcase. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:The Church and suicide by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      One Christian community's behaviour does not necessarily indicate how others will act, especially given the incredibly wide variety of "flavours" of Christianity.

      I'm drawing on a broad sample.

    5. Re:The Church and suicide by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      The type of second hand story from someone you have never met in your life? This is the kind of reasoning that makes me doubt skepticism.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:The Church and suicide by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      The type of second hand story from someone you have never met in your life? This is the kind of reasoning that makes me doubt skepticism.

      It's consistent with lots of first-hand observation.

    7. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Orthodox Christianity is traditionally very hard on those who commit suicide, not allowing them to be buried on church grounds, for instance. Dostoevsky talks about this in The Brothers Karamozov.

    8. Re:The Church and suicide by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. My best guess is to simply think that you are using the near-universal strategy of believing data points the fit your preconception and throwing out ones that don't. Much like what I am doing here.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a billionaire says they were abducted by aliens who told them to give away all their money to the poor, and upon doing so would be abducted again to be taken on a tour of the universe for all eternity with every need they've ever had met, that would still be one crazy fucking loon. I don't care how much good they did with their money. That's still batshit crazy.

    10. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound very Christian of them.

    11. Re:The Church and suicide by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. My best guess is to simply think that you are using the near-universal strategy of believing data points the fit your preconception and throwing out ones that don't. Much like what I am doing here.

      You're incorrect regarding my strategy.

    12. Re:The Church and suicide by Kozz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quoth Archangel Michael :

      As a congregational leader...

      Holy crap. I'd think a being like yourself would have better things to do than post on Slashdot.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    13. Re:The Church and suicide by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you'd think that ... but I don't :-P

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think you know who is a 'good' person and who is a 'bad' person then I agree, you ARE a wacko religious "nutcase"...

    15. Re:The Church and suicide by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      As a Christian I have no doubts of the truth of that story. I've seen equally bad treatment of divorcees and unwed mothers. I've learned to find this oddly comforting. It reinforces the old idea that Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. I'd take it a little farther and point out that we can often be as bad and worse than any non-Christian. We should be better than we were in the past of course, but when it comes down to actual salvation, it's not that important. It's still sad to see people act like that though, and the error in doing show really should be called out.

    16. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hey, what do I know? I'm a wacko religious nutcase. ;)

      Agreed.

    17. Re:The Church and suicide by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's a false dilemma. The other choice is that church was a fallen one. Frankly, in scripture it says that everyone is responsible for his own sin (although one's sin can hurt other people) so the church was clearly acting in the wrong.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:The Church and suicide by xaxa · · Score: 1

      second hand story from someone you have never met in your life?

      Plenty of those in the Bible...

    19. Re:The Church and suicide by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I know a devout orthodox Christian family that suffered a suicide of one of its members. One of the worst parts for them was the way that the church that they'd been part of, and served, for all of their lives turned away from them.

      It's called "Orthodox" for a reason.

      One trait that distinguishes Orthodox from both Catholic and Protestant is that Orthodox pay a lot of attention to "Church Tradition" - meaning "that's how we always did things, so that's how we keep doing them in case the details might be somehow important". In that, Orthodox churches are far less flexible than even Catholics.

      And one of the long-standing Orthodox traditions is that suicide is a mortal sin which, due to its nature, is not redeemable (for the lack of purgatory or any other similar concept that would allow to achieve redemption postmortem). Therefore, person who commits it cannot be buried on church ground, and there can be no prayers for their soul by any faithful Orthodox Christian; it is assumed, unambiguously, that the soul of the suicidee will go to Hell.

    20. Re:The Church and suicide by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the family in question is no longer orthodox. I have repeatedly heard similar stories, in which people are happy to be members of ultra-conservative religious communities and espouse their intolerant philosophy, until the intolerance is inevitably turned upon them.

    21. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you'd think that ... but I don't :-P

      All the altar boys have gone home for the night?

    22. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Job: There's the "problem of evil" that challenges your existance or even worthiness of a god.
      God: Shut up and look at the silly monster!

    23. Re:The Church and suicide by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Totally speculating here, but I'm guessing the condemnation of suicide stems from a (probably misguided) attempt to discourage people from killing themselves. At least, telling people that killing themselves is a ticket straight to heaven is not something that nice churches do.

      BTW, I say "probably" misguided because I had a grandfather who said he was long depressed but didn't kill himself because of his belief that it would only make his life (or afterlife) worse than it already was. One could argue that his belief was only prolonging his misery and he'd have been better off dead, but by the end of his life, he seemed glad to have stuck it out. If nothing else, even if his net happiness was negative, he was of service to those around him.

    24. Re:The Church and suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we should instead focus on what we can do with what we have, to build up and bless(Order, Peace, Joy) this world we live in; leaving it better than when we found it.

      plus he knows perl! wow...!

  33. Inflammatory by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Informative

    inflammatory

    Pronunciation: \in-fla-m-tor-\

    Function: adjective

    Date: circa 1711

    1 : tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : seditious

    2 : tending to inflame or excite the senses

    3 : accompanied by or tending to cause inflammation

    — inflammatorily \-fla-m-tor--l\ adverb

    Source

    --
    -kgj
  34. so let me get this straight... by nimbius · · Score: 1

    The company that no longer exists just fired the guy who ran it into the ground?

    someone check the connection to the trustees and former board...i think theres an unacceptably high latency...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  35. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They killed a man for fucks sake! This is no time to be trolling!

  36. No, Inflammable by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Informative

    Inflammable

    1. Capable of burning; easily set on fire.
    2. (figuratively) Easily excited; set off by the slightest excuse; easily enraged or inflamed.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  37. Well there goes by mandark1967 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Darl's employee discount on the Linux license...

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  38. They don't have a big enough cannon. :) by meerling · · Score: 1

    They don't have a big enough cannon. :)

  39. I prefer inflammatory but it's all good by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "Inflammatory" has an extra poetic ring to me -- Merriam-Webster's definition includes that lovely word "seditious", which isn't really applicable here, but what the hell? -- but "inflammable" is fine.

    All of this is metaphorical -- the important thing is not accuracy but insult.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:I prefer inflammatory but it's all good by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I see. Personally, I liked "set off by the slightest excuse" from inflammable. It seems to define his excessively litigious nature nicely.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  40. $300k salary + bonus for meeting loss targets by RichMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Darl was hauling in a pretty pile for driving SCO into oblivion.

    Last year while in BK he hauled in $492k.

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095013409004254/v51630e10vkza.htm

    This from a 60 person company. That was losing money like crazy.

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095013409001443/0000950134-09-001443-index.htm
    $13M revenue, $8.7M loss

    Nice 0.5/13 -> 1/26 of the revenue was paid to Darl

  41. Buh-bye! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia's entry on SCO reads like a novel comprised of cheats, deceits, and betrayals. What a long, strange trip its been. Good thing I ended up NOT working for them, as I had a chance to back in the early nineties. I really wanted to as it would have been my first regular paid gig in OSS. Wow, hindsite, huh?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    1. Re:Buh-bye! by RichMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Early '90s SCO would have been Santa Cruz Operations which sold the "UNIX" business to Caldera which renamed itself SCO in 2003 to muddle the ownership issues. The original SCO renamed itself to Tarantella and was bought by SUN which is now Oracle.

      It was/is a great mess.

    2. Re:Buh-bye! by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      So sad. Through hard work Caldera could have been as big and successful as Red Hat. I'm not saying that Red Hat is the culmination of all computing enterprises but I do believe they make an honest living providing services for big business over there.

  42. oh, please, say terminated with extreme prejudice by swschrad · · Score: 1

    it's they least they could do to reward his fateful service.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  43. Only way it could be any better...... by domatic · · Score: 1

    .....is if the news was delivered to Darl in an Austrian accent by a huge guy in sunglasses and black leather.

  44. Exactly right. by NoYob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guys like this always pop up again somewhere. We have not seen the last of Darl McBride's assholery ... not by a long shot.

    He has CEO on his resume and I'm sure there are some "benchmarks" that he hit as part of his contract; meaning, he was a good CEO by those people's definition. He'll get another job somewhere.

    It must be nice being at the top.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Exactly right. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Well for better or for worse he did manage to keep SCO afloat for years - without making sales, just burning piles of money on law suits. I still don't understand how they got all that money (other than a "licensing" deal with Microsoft I have not heard of any significant income for the company). I have to say he impresses me. It's not easy to make it last as long as he did, to cause as much damage and trouble as he did. McBride has made heaps of money for many people I'm sure (not just for himself), and in a business sense that alone makes him a good CEO.

      So yes I'm sure he's a good manager/CEO, and I'm sure he's evil. Just like Hitler was a really strong leader, and also totally evil (sorry, Godwin, just using him as an example here).

    2. Re:Exactly right. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So yes I'm sure he's a good manager/CEO, and I'm sure he's evil. Just like Hitler was a really strong leader, and also totally evil (sorry, Godwin, just using him as an example here).

      Actually Hitler was a terrible leader. If you look at Nazi Germany as a corporation whose business was military expansion, Hitler was a very bad boss.

      Both Rommel in North Africa and the leaders of Army Group centre lost because when they asked Hitler for permission to make a tactical withdrawal - warfare being all about manoeuvre and withdrawal is part of that - he refused. That lead to catastrophic defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad. You can also argue that a less ideological approach to occupied Eastern Europe would have made it a productive part of the Reich. Given that the Reich was far behind the Allies at industrial production, that was very serious.

      E.g. Rosenberg wanted the Germans to champion Ukrainian nationalism against the Russians, and also to attempt to either turn Russian POWs into Axis soldiers or conscript them into labour battalions. Hitler backed a policy of exterminating the Russian POWs and also effectively reducing the Ukrainians and other slavs to a slave race. This meant that industrial production was very low in Eastern Europe.

      Basically Hitler was the boss from hell if you were Rosenberg or Rommel. In fact in company terms there were numerous attempts by the board (i.e. the Generals) to get rid of him as CEO, basically because people feared his micromanagement in areas he did not understand would destroy everything.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  45. I don't think so... by crovira · · Score: 1

    Those firms are likely to hire based on results and he LOST.

    Darl McBride = LOSER
    LOSER = Darl McBride

    Ta ta sucker.

    Hope you like being a dog catcher, where its not an elected position.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, he lost, but against whom, and how long did it take? And how much of his opponents' money did he manage to waste? And how many of his opponents simply caved in? And what did it turn out his "evidence" was?

      Seems to me SCO was a fly speck compared to who they were suing, yet they still managed to cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to their opponents when all they were holding was a few pieces of boilerplate code that are probably in a million other C source files that have nothing to do with operating systems.

      Unfortunately, Darl likely has a very bright future ahead of him. Some unscrupulous company or other will pick him up and set him in charge of destroying their competition, and, assuming that competition doesn't involve any 800 pound gorillas (which Darl seems to have a fetish for), he'll probably be able to put them all out of business.

    2. Re:I don't think so... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Seems to me SCO was a fly speck compared to who they were suing, yet they still managed to cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to their opponents when all they were holding was a few pieces of boilerplate code that are probably in a million other C source files that have nothing to do with operating systems."

      The plural of "copyright infringement" isn't "public domain". AT&T should be thanked for hiring lawyers that fucked up their intellectual properties. Did those guys end up at IBM and helped them negotiate the deal with Microsoft?

  46. Wrong way around by Bud · · Score: 1

    What was that again? Last time I checked, Darl McBride was busy terminating SCO. :)

    --Bud

  47. Darl McBride: The Slightest Excuse by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Personally, I liked "set off by the slightest excuse" from inflammable. It seems to define his excessively litigious nature nicely.

    Heh, that's good too -- "slightest excuse," indeed!

    --
    -kgj
  48. And there was much rejoicing by onemorechip · · Score: 1

    (as with Sir Robin's minstrels)

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  49. Its ok, we can just gang up on Senor Miguel now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enderle is dead, Darl has his balls cut off so Linux enemy #1 because Senor Miguel of Redmond.

  50. Re:Don't forget... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am confused by the moral aspects of this headline. Is moving into the assassination field a step down from patent trolling, or merely a lateral move?

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  51. I bet he'd be a good candidate... by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

    ...for Moffat's job at IBM.

  52. The bad news by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    The bad news is they just fired him, they didn't really terminate him in the "Arnold" sense of the word. And, of course, he has plenty of ill gotten gains as a result of all of this.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  53. And along those lines... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If anyone, and I mean anyone gets a copy of his resume sent to their HR department...they must post it.

    I apologize for the brusque tone, but this is not optional - you have to do it. In it's entirety, unedited.

    I'll bet it reads like Kim Jong Il wrote it.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:And along those lines... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I'll bet it reads like Kim Jong Il wrote it.

      I already have his Kim Jong Il authored farewell speech (excerpt below):

      I'm the smartest most crever most physicarry fit
      But nobody else seems to rearize it
      When I change the world maybe they'll notice me
      But until then I'rr just be ronery
      Rittle ronery, poor rittle me

    2. Re:And along those lines... by skarphace · · Score: 1

      I'll bet it reads like Kim Jong Il wrote it.

      You think this guy writes his own resumes? Pfft... I'll bet you a year's salary that he hires a headhunter and doesn't do anything but lunch interviews.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    3. Re:And along those lines... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      I read that article, and Kim sounds like my kind of dictator.

      Kim Jong Il in 2012!!!

    4. Re:And along those lines... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure of it. But I don't care who writes the thing. I want to read it.

      And to modify my above edict - whoever posts it may cross out contact info. Like his phone number and email. I don't want this to turn into a harassment campaign by accident.

      I just want to see how he spins this whole thing. It is guaranteed to be one of the most surreal reads ever.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    5. Re:And along those lines... by pete-wilko · · Score: 1

      Surely we can just look at his public LinkedIn profile? ;)

  54. Circular Reasoning - FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Circular Reasoning - FTW!

    1. Re:Circular Reasoning - FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So being mentally ill automatically makes you commit suicide?

  55. a bit late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might have earned them a few karma points if they had done this half a decade ago, it's a little too late now.

    1. Re:a bit late by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      This might have earned them a few karma points if they had done this half a decade ago, it's a little too late now.

      The company was in receivership - at least partly to get Darryl's hands off the controls before he crashed it into IBM's brick wall yet again. With him no longer making decisions the receivers didn't need his decision making any more - and continuing to pay his salary would be a violation of their fiduciary duty.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. Too little too late, fuckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darl was just the mouthpiece of SCO. There's no way they're going to let go of this when there's still the slim, slightest possibility of money to be made from the creation of a product that they DID NOT create. This is purely a PR move, their overall strategy is still the same -- in the lack of actual quality products of their own, litigate and attempt to steal someone else's -- or at the very least get nice fat settlements and royalties.

    You'll note that in taking the moral high ground and "terminating" Darl McBride, SCO as a company has not announced ANY intention to refund the companies who purchased their fraudulent Linux "licenses" before a court decision was ever made. Think they'll ever see any of that money?

  57. Re:Big deal? BIG DEal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you c the world goes about how the moon is. Like the ocean for example the ocean waters go on how the moon i s.

  58. Re:Don't forget... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Depends on which Terminator they used.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  59. Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if you consider a typo to be as bad as a grammatical error. One results from imperfect typing, while the other from imperfect education.

    In other words, what you are saying is: typing = education

    1. Re:Not really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Only if you consider a typo to be as bad as a grammatical error.
      > One results from imperfect typing, while the other from imperfect education.
      > In other words, what you are saying is: typing = education

      Well, I don't know what kind of education YOU got, but when I took typing in school, they also taught us to proofread.

  60. Indeed by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Likely he will never be homeless.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely he isn't a fictional character that has several mental disorders.

  61. You mean ... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    You mean ...

    1. SCO still exists?

    2. They have been paying Darl and friends good money all this time?

    No comment. I'm too baffled to say anything.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:You mean ... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Yes and Yes.

      Welcome to Corporate America 101.

  62. Re:Don't forget... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    I am confused by the moral aspects of this headline. Is moving into the assassination field a step down from patent trolling, or merely a lateral move?

    I'm not sure (not being a lawyer and all) but I think they're trying to redeem themselves.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  63. tag missing: hooray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no?

  64. Job by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    Ok guys, our buddy Darl needs a job. Who's hiring? ;)

  65. Darl McBride's reaction... by merc · · Score: 1

    "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHNNN!!!"

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  66. FAIL by xmorg · · Score: 1

    epic failure.

  67. TYPO, sorry by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gosh, of all the stupid typos I could do. Please read that as "I do not advocate any form of violence against anyone." I don't even know how the heck that happened.

    1. Re:TYPO, sorry by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      In my view, imprisonment is violence, of nearly the worst sort. It almost invariably involves prison rape, denial of medical care, and other gross abuses of human rights. I for one would prefer death to even a moderately long prison sentence. I'm not sure I would wish it on anyone, even Darl McBride, scum though he may be.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure there is a better way to deter crimes such as his. I do not deny their seriousness. Through outright fraud (lying for criminal gain) he deprived thousands if not millions of people, including me, you and many of the rest of us here, of some part of our livelihood; in some cases, a significant part. Theft on a large scale is basically equivalent to violence - just a slower form of murder. Society cannot endure if it is allowed to go unpunished. But how to punish it without resorting to an essentially equivalent evil, namely the violence of prison, is something that entirely escapes me. I wish I knew a good way, but I don't. Perhaps you or someone else here might.

    2. Re:TYPO, sorry by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      freudian slip perhaps? ;-)

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    3. Re:TYPO, sorry by deander2 · · Score: 1

      i second this interpretation. =P

    4. Re:TYPO, sorry by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I do not abdicate doing violence to my unconscious.

    5. Re:TYPO, sorry by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      A Freudian slip, perhaps? ;-)

      I understand. I disagree with the death penalty as a matter of principle, but there are some people in the world who I would struggle to say don't deserve it.

  68. I second that! by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obligatory
    I am a sociopathic janitor, you insensitive clod!

    Careful there, or I'll grab a rag and clean the toilets, then clean your coffee mug!
    And I have keys to everything!

    Yeah, I see what you mean!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:I second that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Janitors have always struck me as a big security risk. Afaict they are paid minimum wage (which isn't exactly going to result in huge loyalty), often through a contractor (which gives them even less loyalty) and yet they generally have keys to everyones offices.

      If you want to steal information from a company getting a corrupt janitor inside seems like a pretty good strategy to me.

    2. Re:I second that! by DocHoncho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shhhh.. don't ruin a good gig.

      *Ahem.*

      Back to the mopping...

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    3. Re:I second that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good point! And what's more, they rarely form social bonds with other workers, either because they work at different hours/in different areas, or because of elitism on the part of the other workers. Still, if I were planning corporate espionage or a heist, I'd try and control the security guard/s or the IT boffin/s (NB: Clearances janitors/security have for physical access, IT have the equivalent for data), since they usually have the same deal PLUS ability to disable the security alarms/cameras.

  69. In Other News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The California Republican Party has just announced a fresh new face running in the Republican Gubernatorial Primaries ...

    ( You guessed it - Daryl "McFly" McBride ... )

  70. Yeah, but what are they gonna do with by twoears · · Score: 2, Interesting

    his brother Larry and his other brother Darl?

  71. It's become SENTIENT! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    The monster has become sentient! Run for your lives!!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  72. Is your sarcasm detector broken? by spun · · Score: 1

    Oh for the love of.... sarcasm, my friend. Sarcasm. I was writing from the delusional point of view of the sociopaths running things. The funny thing is that you understood every single point I was trying to make, except that you thought I was actually serious.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Is your sarcasm detector broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my detector was broken. :( I did a follow-up through your account and found that you were arguing the opposite position. The egg-on-face is all mine, and as I must eat it, I must also announce that it is delicious.

  73. Futurama version (was See ya!) by siglercm · · Score: 1

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

    'Cause I don't want ass prints on my new door!

    --
    sigfault (core dumped)
  74. Loss of position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article states that not only has Darl been fired, but the positions of President and CEO have been eliminated in their entirety. Are those not required positions in a corporate structure?

    1. Re:Loss of position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see where you're confused -- SCO doesn't rely on a traditional corporate structure...rather it attempts to litigate other people's products out of their own hands and claim them as their own, make up stories about fake death threats and bodyguards (because we know just how dangerous a basement nerd using Linux is), and generally just flail their arms hoping they'll eventually hit something worth money.

  75. The big house by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    That's got to be IBM, right? Oh, IBM is the "Big Blue House", I forgot. Sorry, Bear.

  76. poison pill by jjohn_h · · Score: 1

    >>>
    Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.

    They have a poison pill. New investors get max. 15% of votes
    whatever their share.

  77. Prison by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is much room for reform of U.S. prisons. Of course all law is enforced with the threat of violence, the difference is that there is supposed to be a system of justice guiding that violence. It's not perfect.

  78. Re:Don't forget... by Metrol · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the patent doesn't cross the line of scrimmage then I believe this would be a lateral to assassination. In this case it was a failed play action fake that resulted in a 4th down turn over to the bankruptcy courts. Had the patent seen a 3rd down conversion to a first down we'd still be in play, so long as the assassin didn't shoot the ball.

    --
    The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
  79. Sorry... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Darth is pretty much taken, at least as long as Cheney is alive. :(

    Mini-Darth, then.

    "Just Evil enough!" :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  80. Our right to care by fnj · · Score: 1

    Bravo! Best post ever!

  81. Unbelievable by rco3 · · Score: 1

    Three years - almost to the day! - since I've commented on Slashdot. It was always the same things: trolls, Microsoft, transparent aluminum, and SCO.

    I come back just to see if it still smells the same, and what do I find? SCO fires Darl McBride. WTF?

    On the one hand, this is the day I've long awaited. We all knew it was coming, and that was the only sweet thing about SCO.

    On the other hand, I can't believe I left for three years and yet on the front page the very first time I look is ANOTHER GODDAMN SCO STORY. Haven't all of these people gone to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison yet?

    And of course the first comment in that SCO story is a troll. See ya in another three years!

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    1. Re:Unbelievable by Yosho · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I can't believe I left for three years and yet on the front page the very first time I look is ANOTHER GODDAMN SCO STORY. Haven't all of these people gone to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison yet?

      Actually, we here at Slashdot have been holding on to this story for years, waiting for you to come back so we could put it on the main page.

      Also, Darl McBride was found dead in his apartment along with two hookers and a clown, but we're going to hold on to that story for the next time you come back.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  82. Re:Don't forget... by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 1

    If you left out the GNAA/Goatse link you proberbly be modded funny.

    Speaking of Goatse, I am kind of sad to hear McBride go at this point in time because I was looking forward to debt collectors doing something like that to him.

    --
    This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
  83. And the fat lady is clearing her throat... by Chas · · Score: 1

    *Jumps around like someone given an LD50 of caffeine and spring-shoes.*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  84. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  85. Ah, I was in the mood by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Ah, I was in the mood for a bit of gall, vinegar, acid and venom.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  86. Termites??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?... Oh... Nevermind.... bitch!

  87. Re:Don't forget... by remmelt · · Score: 1

    With EXTREME PREJUDICE???

  88. Um, no by danaris · · Score: 1

    Martin Luther headed the Protestant Reformation, and thus founded Protestantism.

    King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and thus founded the Church of England, aka the Anglican church, aka the Episcopal church.

    The latter is what I happen to have been raised in, and I have no illusions about its foundation. However, its principles have always seemed to me to match much, much more closely with what the Bible says Jesus taught than Rome's do.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  89. Linux ain't out the woods yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the guy. The guy doesn't matter. What matters is the legal outcome. And it is FAR from over.

    Just 2 months ago an appeals court overturned the Unix ownership judgement and sent it to trial. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/sco/

    Me thinks you Linux religious types don't care about facts.

  90. Prison rape. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I grew up more or less on the 'tracks'.

    Several of my childhood friends took 'extended vacations at states expense' one in a max security (he hit a guard). They were in their early 20s (but not pussies) at the time.

    Prison rape is fairly rare unless you are a child molester, hurt a woman or child, are a snitch or seriously offend the wrong people.

    Most prisoners are there to do their time and get out. You have much more to fear from the guards.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  91. OT:Big deal by rhendershot · · Score: 1

    Do you ever doubt? Ever?

    If you are happening to doubt when, oh say, a meteorite decides to target your cerebellum and you die while not actually being certain and trusting, wouldn't God consider you a separate?

    On the other hand, if you are full of trust and invitation to God and Jesus and you decide that you just can't cut it here on Earth and that it would be a good thing and you suicide, would not God consider you faithful and faultless?

    So, in effect, it *does* matter how you die.

    Except that no rule set unambiguously covers all scenarios so it really doesn't. namene?

    1. Re:OT:Big deal by randyh1 · · Score: 1

      A person may have faith in God for many things (health, finances, safety, etc.), but that is not "saving faith". The moment a person truly places their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for eternal life, believing that He died on the cross for them, he or she is instantaneously transferred from death unto life. They are born again. And at that moment they are completely secure. God does the saving, not us. We are adopted into His family, it can never be undone, we are forever His. Jesus said that no power can pry us out of God's hands. Eternal life actually begins the moment we, by simple child like faith, ask Christ to come into our life and save us. Again, for more info see http://needhim.org/

    2. Re:OT:Big deal by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      The moment a person truly places their faith and trust

      Ok, I'm bored so I was looking back through comments and, in the interest of conversation, wanted to address this particular issue. I asked if you ever doubted. Your answer implies that you must accept without doubt, otherwise it would seem to me that it is not "truly" accepting.

      It's a bit like the "you must be this tall" limit placed on the bigger rides at the amusement park. If you have doubt you still can say you believe, and you can even temporarily blind yourself to your doubt but it will resurface. Does God let you stand on tippy-toes?

      And even for the tallest of us, if s/he should throw someone out of the ride to their death, then that person is not separate? But the person who was not able to be tall enough is forever and ever *pwned? And pity the poor sap who never got into the park at all! Didn't even know there was all this ridage and heightage and whatnot going on. He must surely sit furthest from the ride-master of anyone.

      weird.

      see http://www.hedoesnottrulyloveyou.net/

    3. Re:OT:Big deal by randyh1 · · Score: 1

      The Bible puts things in a much simpler form when it says, "For whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." That implies a choice on our part. Someone came to the Apostle Paul and said, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul simply said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." That implies an act of our will. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him should not parish but have everlasting life." God made the sacrifice and offers us a free gift of life eternal. In the accepting of the gift, I am choosing not only to receive the gift but the giver, and am thereby placing all of my weight, so to speak, all of my trust on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ. The gift is undeserved, unmerited, unearned. For by His grace, His unmerited favor, we are saved through faith, and even that is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, and completely separate from any works or good deeds (Ephesians 2:8&9). The greatest question in life is this: In whom will you place your trust for eternal life. Remember the "whosoever calls" part. The wonder of that is it is simply a call for help. One that cries out, "Lord, please save me. I believe you died on the cross for me, to exchange my sinfulness for your righteousness. Come into my life as Lord and Savior." If you're not sure of whether you believe or not, or to what extent, just ask God to give you the faith to whatever extent He requires. It's all a gift from Him, anyway.

  92. former employee by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Caldera was a fantastic company to work for until they bought SCO. I was more than happy to jump ship a few weeks after the acquisition. Ransom Love was doing great things with Caldera, and the SCO purchase dragged the company down. Shortly after the acquisition, SCO employees were brought in left and right, while many Caldera employees left for other companies, huge bran drain. Coupled with the inevitable layoffs, I would have been surprised to see any pro-Linux people remaining there after a year of the Caldera/SCO merge.

  93. You subconscious is calling.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... and wants to strangle Darl...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  94. I think you mean "unflammable" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    inflammable |inflambl|
    adjective
    easily set on fire : inflammable and poisonous gases.