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.'"
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?
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
He'll probably just get a cushy job with his buddy Mr. Yarrow's merry band of censorship enthusiasts.
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.
"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."
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.
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
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!"
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.
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.
What happens when I tell your mom that your room isn't clean? Time to look for a new basement!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
his brother Larry and his other brother Darl?
There is no such distinction. Even concrete will burn. "Flammable" was coined precisely because people got confused by "Inflammable".
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."
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.
"(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
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.)
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.