Slashdot Mirror


UnXis Group To Acquire SCO

Evil-G writes "In an email on Friday, SCO informed its partners that UnXis Inc. was chosen as the successful bidder for SCO's Unix software business on 26 January. The slightly convoluted phrasing is probably due to SCO's current reorganization under Chapter 11. On 16 February, the transaction is to be submitted for approval to the bankruptcy court where SCO's case is pending."

131 comments

  1. SCO has a software business? by fish+waffle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought they were just patent trolls.

    1. Re:SCO has a software business? by iammani · · Score: 1

      They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?

    2. Re:SCO has a software business? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?

      No, Darl McBride is just posting on /. again.

    3. Re:SCO has a software business? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's because you are an ignorant cunt. They owned unix and linux you know.

      They claimed that Linux has substantial amounts of Unix in it which gave them "control" of Linux in their fantasy world. The problems with this were threefold. 1/ that they never proved the presence of Unix code in Linux and 2/ They have repeatedly been ruled in court not to own the required copyrights to back up those claims 3/ The moment the claimed code was identified it would begin to be removed. The legal owner of those copyrights says Linux doesn't violate them.

      So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.

    4. Re:SCO has a software business? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      claiming to own linux would be patent trolling

      --
      warning pointless sig
    5. Re:SCO has a software business? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      A few years ago, UnixWare and OpenServer actually had pretty impressive marketshare. SCO's increasing insanity, and total neglect of those products after ~2006, caused almost all of their customers to jump ship. It's sad, really... those weren't bad operating systems at all.

    6. Re:SCO has a software business? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:SCO has a software business? by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slight pedancy... they were copyright trolls. Nothing really to do with patents (if they were squabbling over patents, they might have had half a chance).

      But yeah - they (as sibling pointed out) used to have some halfway decent products. I think it was around the time they sued a couple of their biggest customers (Chrysler and AutoZone) that their other customers began phasing out (with extreme prejudice) UnixWare, OpenLinux/OpenServer, and damned near everything else that SCO owned and/or sold.

      By 2006 or so, about the only folks left giving any money to SCO was Microsoft (by proxy, and directly) and I think Sun Microsystems (licensing SysV bits for Solaris), though I think Sun did that last back in 2004 and pretty much stopped after that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:SCO has a software business? by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      No. Not patent trolling. Microsoft has made those claims; SCO asserted it owned the copyrights behind code in Linux, and other insane theories of ownership.

      Ballmer claimed 140+ patents over what the Linux kernel does... along with GNU utilities, the number could be in the thousands-- and in all probability, a math major's way of holding on to his goose that lays the golden eggs called Windows. In this way, Microsoft is patent trolling.... along with buying certain components of Novell's patent intellectual property-- if they get away with it.

      SCO is likely to get slapped down by the court; it's been done before, specifically with this purchaser. Who even knew it was up for auction?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    9. Re:SCO has a software business? by Ritchie70 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you will find that there is still a large installed base of SCO products in the various vertical markets. It's hard to change that sometimes.

      None of that, of course, means that anyone is still paying for support...

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    10. Re:SCO has a software business? by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      I thought they were just patent trolls.

      They sold servers and software for years before becoming patent trolls. They were once an IT company and some of their stuff is still around.

    11. Re:SCO has a software business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know SCO has any notable patents at all?

    12. Re:SCO has a software business? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Yes. Unix was awesome. Yes, they did take Microsoft's money and make a hash of it. No, this didn't impede progress at all because we had already worked around the intellectual property issues of Unix with Linux. A swing and a miss for the 'softies. Nice try, come again in 2015.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re:SCO has a software business? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know what I find hilarious? The fact that Linux guys as a group are fricking obsessed with getting "the big bad MSFT" and completely missing the real enemy about to seriously hurt them. It reminds me of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs was completely obsessed over IBM and Gates quietly snuck in and stomped his ass. It is like the sheep laughing at the old toothless tiger while leaning up against his bestest buddy the BB Wolf.

      Who is the hidden enemy you might ask? :Let me put it this way: Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is? I'll tell you, because thanks to "the TiVo trick" GPL V2 is about as worthless as can be. Hell you might as well release it all as BSD, because that is what's gonna happen anyway. That is why RMS had to come up with GPL V3 in the first place, because thanks to the TiVo trick the four freedoms mean squat as long as they stick with GPL V2, and Google hasn't touched a single drop of GPL V3.

      So you might want to be looking closer at who is guarding the henhouse instead of caring about the old grudges. MSFT is the past, sure they'll keep the desktop and office but just like the mainframe was once the center of computing so too will the office PC end up with a niche that frankly doesn't really grow. PCs have gotten "good enough" for the vast majority and people don't just upgrade everytime MSFT does a new OS anymore. They are the past and mobile is the future and if you don't watch it Linux will end up winning the battle but losing the war. After all what good is Linux being everywhere if there is no more freedom than any proprietary OS thanks to the corps simply using GPL V2 and the TiVo trick?

      As for TFA, just let them fricking die already. Hell it isn't even any fun making fun of them anymore, McBride has lost everything and the company is a corpse. It's like going to laugh at your asshole neighbor for old times sake now that he is sleeping in his car by the 7/11. Sure McBride was a douche and the company went from being an actual company with actual products (I kinda liked DR-DOS back in the day myself) to yet another worthless troll,but its over. Now more drama, no more McBride crazy talk, the fat lady is down the street having a sandwich. What's next /. gonna have an article when they sell the office furniture?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:SCO has a software business? by kwark · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is?"

      Because it's not (any version of) GPL. Except the kernel it runs on (which is GPLv2), it is mostly Apache.:
      "The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org. "
      source: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

    15. Re:SCO has a software business? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL

      Before you get voted up, that is the whole point of having a limited company. I believe you call it something else in the US but the general idea's the same - the liability (ie. the assets that can be taken to pay the debts) is limited to what the company owns. The logic is that it encourages businesses because a man is much more likely to take risks if he's not going to lose all his assets if it all goes to pot.

      Darl McBride owns his house. But it's not Darl McBride that's in financial trouble, it's his company. That Darl McBride may wind up in financial trouble at a later date as a direct result of this (eg. he wins up jobless) is neither here nor there as far as the company being in bankruptcy is concerned.

    16. Re:SCO has a software business? by jimicus · · Score: 2

      So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.

      Can't think why you'd want the Unixware and Openserver business. Unless you were getting it stupidly cheap and were going to use it to convert the few remaining Unixware/OpenServer customers to Linux (and bill them handsomely for the privilege).

    17. Re:SCO has a software business? by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The rot set in long before then. IIRC this started to blow up circa 2002, and by mid-2003 I was meeting people who'd never even used Unix professionally and had independently reached the conclusion that SCO were doing some very odd things.

      IMV suing your customers is generally considered to be a Very Bad Idea. Suing your customers and then announcing this fact proudly to the press is... well, it's mind-boggling. Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone running a business would authorise a press release which essentially said "We're suing our customers". The only rational explanation is that there was something else - unrelated to SCOs continued business as an OS vendor - that was pushing Darl to do this.

      I generally shy away from conspiracy theories because they almost inevitably end up with some absurdly convoluted idea that includes Elvis still being alive and in cahoots with Dracula - but it's really hard to avoid here.

    18. Re:SCO has a software business? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Not really, the old SCO became Tarantella and sold the name to the Caldera. Finally Tarantella got bought by Sun, now a part of Oracle. What a mess.

    19. Re:SCO has a software business? by Vryl · · Score: 1

      Caldera or the real Santa Cruz?

      SCO Group is not SCO, it is Caldera.

    20. Re:SCO has a software business? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's going to take some time as software tends to have inertia. Just ask anyone hooked on IE6.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    21. Re:SCO has a software business? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      You know, this is one of the most insightful posts I've read on /. in a long, LONG time.

      As for TFA, just let them fricking die already.

      Exactly. Throughout the years, people have posted long, time-consuming (both to write and to read) rants about SCO and how they keep hanging on and never going away, etc. Half the reason they stayed alive so long was they became almost a cause celebre thanks to the disproportionate attention lavished on them by the Linux/FOSS crowd and Groklaw. Hardly anyone outside these groups knew anything about SCO; nor would they have cared had they known.

    22. Re:SCO has a software business? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Still, you do have to admit that creating and releasing a huge amount of software under a different license is a good way to avoid the GPL3. So obviously avoiding GPL3 is a primary motivation behind Android.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    23. Re:SCO has a software business? by cronius · · Score: 1

      Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is? I'll tell you, because thanks to "the TiVo trick" GPL V2 is about as worthless as can be. Hell you might as well release it all as BSD, because that is what's gonna happen anyway.

      So... how is that a threat to Linux? Is Mac OS X a threat to *BSD?

      Linus and other prominent Linux developers considered the GPL v3 and it was rejected. There are pros and cons with GPL v2, just like GPL v3, just like BSD license, etc. See e.g. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-vs-the-gplv3/1200 regarding tivoization:

      The GPL v3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.

      I'm not saying I necessarily agree, I'm just saying they made a conscious choice about it.

      In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this), software patents are clearly the threat against Linux, and will be for a long time. Just look at Android (again).

      --
      Life is Reality
    24. Re:SCO has a software business? by turgid · · Score: 1

      You will go far.

  2. Not so fast by binarylarry · · Score: 0

    Nice try Darl!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Not so fast by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      You are actually right it may well be Darl and this is unlikely to happen. If the submitter had read the Groklaw article on the subject before submitting he'd know that this is the same company which tried to buy SCO's UNIX rights before and was rejected by the court for not being serious. It's quite likely that this is some strange front for one of the SCO people and it's also likely that the court will reject this kind offer once again.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  3. So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by grapeape · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow looks like all that is left of SCO are lawsuits, debt and a pending appeal. You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix. My guess is they will do anything in their power to distance themselves from the SCO name.

    1. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix.

      Maybe because they have a 3-letter domain name? Probably their most valuable asset ;-)

    2. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they do still have customers who want/need support, updates (at least enough to keep it running on new hardware as their old hardware dies) licenses etc. That buisness is clearly worth something. How much is debatable but it's almost certainly not zero.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    3. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by fucket · · Score: 2

      From your description, it sounds like it could be worth less than zero.

    4. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix."

      I just heard there is a company just like SCO out there, it's called UnXis. It's SCO's new name.

    5. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, most customers stuck with it now use virtualization. It works well unde VMWare: there is simply no reason to buy any particular hardware for OpenServer when you can run an emulation environment that exceeds the resources OpenServer was designed to run under.

    6. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by jnelson4765 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm in that situation - we've got a proprietary point of sale system that a lot of our customers run, that was written for SCO OpenServer. To move to Linux would cost $7,000 - $15,000 in license fees for the license transfer, so they're staying on SCO. An SCO OpenServer 6 license is a lot cheaper than the Thoroughbred software stack it's written in.

      It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities. I really can't complain about its stability either - that damn things just keep running, and the most we have to do is replace tape drives and fans every once in a blue moon...

      --
      Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
    7. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by grapeape · · Score: 1

      hmm you may be on to something with that....3 letter domains are awfully hard to come by.

    8. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True. Even the fact that it is -or was- a public company has value, on the order of a few hundred $K - some private company that wants to become public without going through the IPO can save a bunch of money by a 'reverse buyout' - they get themselves 'bought' by the defunct public company, change the name, and they're off and running as a new company.

    9. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Ritchie70 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know of a large SCO customer who is running OpenServer 1.6 in a VM rather than pay for upgrading the thousands of systems to a version that can support modern hardware like sat a and USB.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    10. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 2-letter ones like HP. Too bad that they discontinued the HP15C. :(

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    11. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The problem comes when IRS or your corresponding tax collection organization for your country decides that the system needs a certain feature.

      Here in Sweden you must have a certified cash register these days that frequently sends information about your sales to the tax authorities. All to try to trap the companies evading taxes - often restaurants.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, they have a netblock. That may be worth more than the rest of the company in two weeks.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities.

      We have a few going as well running SCADA systems. It is more reliable than the field instruments that it reads from. The problem is that the entire system is just arsebackwards. Such as setting the date to our local timezone +10GMT. Because GMT-10 is of course the way you expect to write GMT+10 right? Anyone else knows a UNIX system which thinks the world turns in the opposite direction?

    14. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by TAZ6416 · · Score: 1

      Pizza Hut in Northern Ireland, and probably in the rest of the UK used SCO based cash registers about a year or two ago, don't know if they still do. I saw one booting up when I was in getting a coffee when a Pizza Hut was just opening for business that day. And my Vet uses a SCO system that runs off an old 486 in the reception and has WYSE terminals in each of the consulting rooms.

    15. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by bkpark · · Score: 1

      Um, I thought everyone was ready to move to IPv6. Even Windows now supports IPv6 properly.

    16. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      So you want to think about the full ramifications of every Windows machine on the Internet being globally routable?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    17. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by gblfxt · · Score: 1

      hah, if you can find me a wireless router with ipv6, ill hapilly move to ipv6.

    18. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by gblfxt · · Score: 1

      actually, i did a job that a customer had a dying hard drive in a sco server. the tech support was actually helpful! that was about 6 years ago though....

    19. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by bkpark · · Score: 1

      Sure. Find any wireless router that supports DD-WRT. Install DD-WRT, and voila, you have a wireless router with IPv6 support.

      I think cheapest of these routers go for something like $25 or $30 routinely.

    20. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey boy, you from Norn Iron then? Bout ye!

    21. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that an Activant POS?

    22. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      All of them.

      Blame AT&T.

      man TZ on linux:

      The value of TZ can be one of three formats. The first format is used
                    when there is no daylight saving time in the local timezone:

                                  std offset

                    The std string specifies the name of the timezone and must be three or
                    more alphabetic characters. The offset string immediately follows std
                    and specifies the time value to be added to the local time to get Coorâ
                    dinated Universal Time (UTC). The offset is positive if the local
                    timezone is west of the Prime Meridian and negative if it is east
      .

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    23. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Cool, won't ever use it again though since I haven't come across a distribution yet that didn't come with zoneinfo files out of the box. That goes for Linux and several flavours of Unix.

    24. Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Where is hairyfeet when you need him...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  4. All of this has happened before... by Mark19960 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And will happen again.

    They tried once before and the judge blew their ship out of the water.
    What makes their chances any better this time?

    1. Re:All of this has happened before... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      A different judge - one that can be bribed, but it may only take one that doesn't understand the concept of Open Source.

      Don't forget that cases like these are executed by lawyers and they can be extremely sticky and slippery at the same time if they can sniff out a huge pile of money. They don't need to win the case to get the money - just get paid by the hour. A long case with a "customer" with little sense and deep pockets attracts lawyers like a pile of fresh cow dung attracts flies.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:All of this has happened before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doing it right.
      The judges decided that SCO didn't own all of SVR4, which is true (but neither does Novell*,). It was never proven that SVR4 code (or derivative SVR4 code) didn't make its way into Linux.

      SCO does however, legitimately own the copyrights associated with XENIX (which they bought from Microsoft), which includes the portions of SVR4 relating to x86 and a fair chunk of the driver model. Keep in mind that the SCO lawsuits at no point proved that Linux contains no derivative code from SVR4 - only that SCO didn't own the IP they were claiming to own (and were suing over).

      * = Novell owns AT&T's portion of the copyrights via the purchase of USL. Oraclw owns Sun's equally large share of Unix copyrights (as SVR4 was a joint AT&T/Sun initiative), and the rest is split between SCO and whoever owns the BSDi copyrights (as in the BSD developed at Berkeley), as SVR4 also included the best parts of Xenix and BSD.

      Keeping in mind, once again that the SCO lawsuits never proved that no SVR4 derived code made its way into Linux (it never got that far), nothing stops someone from buying the copyrights and trying again (if they believe that there really is derivative code in there), while focusing solely on the portions of IP which were legitimately owned by SCO.

      Note that I singled out Linux simply because there's nothing else to potentially litigate over:
      - Microsoft acquired a license from SCO for SFU and SUA.
      - Sun acquired a license from SCO for Solaris_x86.
      - The lawsuit in the '90s has established that BSD contains no SVR4 derived code (other than the BSD code contained in SVR4).
      - Nobody else who deals in Unix offers Unix for x86.

    3. Re:All of this has happened before... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of better chances, just that eventually they'll be able to slip by.

    4. Re:All of this has happened before... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      All of this reminds me, has anyone seen the Other Novell OS lately, I mean, Netware? Last time I've seen a Netware server was at least 10 years ago!

    5. Re:All of this has happened before... by Bobtree · · Score: 1

      > And will happen again.

      SCO is bankrupt?

      Angels did it.

    6. Re:All of this has happened before... by v1 · · Score: 1

      My first IT job was dealing with netware. It ran on the file servers and that's about all it did. We didn't even really pay attention to netware other than having to make sure the drivers were on the DOS boxes that accessed it.

      I have no specific complaints or brags about it, it was just there, nothing special.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    7. Re:All of this has happened before... by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      A different judge - one that can be bribed, but it may only take one that doesn't understand the concept of Open Source.

      It's not a different judge. The previous UnXis deal was rejected by the same bankruptcy judge in DE that's being asked to look at this one. Furthermore, the reasons for rejecting the deal had (and have) nothing to do with Open Source, and everything to do with standard finances--something a bankruptcy judge generally has a decent grasp on.

      In fact, almost nothing in any of TSCOG's cases (bankruptcy, Novell, IBM, RH, Autozone, etc.) hinges directly on anything to do with an understanding of Open Source. The only exception I can think of is some of IBM's counterclaims involving the GPL.

  5. Service Contracts by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    About the only thing of value would be the service contracts, I think. Certainly no can be interested in SCO "technology" who is not already using it.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Service Contracts by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If they could be peeled off with sufficient creativity, some of the SCO lawsuits might still have value as a high-risk/high-reward vehicle. I'd hate to see the zombie shamble on; but if you could keep the ongoing legal costs down, you could probably find investors willing to take a chance in exchange for the slight odds of a major payoff...

    2. Re:Service Contracts by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Not just service contacts by any means... If you've got 100 SCO severs and need to expand, rewriting your apps can be much more expensive that maintaining your legacy proprietary OS. I fully expect companies that already have a significant installed base of SCO severs (ala McDonalds), will continue to purchase new licenses for years to come. Remember, SCO is almost as old as DOS, and that continues to find new uses as well, no matter how much we'd all like to see it die off quickly, and for good. Even with the incredibly late start FreeDOS got, it continues to develop, even today... SCO will continue as well, with an even slower trailing off, as the OS is far more capable an modern, though slightly primitive compared to free alternatives.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. Just who is "UnXis Inc."? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can anybody shed any light on just who "UnXis Inc." actually is? What is going on here?

    1. Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 2

      Apparently you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1882896&cid=34339448

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    2. Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      You link to a post of yourself asking a similar answer, and getting a good reply. How does that match up with "you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here"?

      Or are you crying about the troll who also replied to you? If so, get off the Internet, since you obviously cannot handle it.

    3. Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? by happymellon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Back in 2009 Unxis and SCO seemed to be the same company.

      http://techrights.org/2009/07/14/sco-and-unxis/

      http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090711015440158

      http://www.unxis.ca/
      http://www.unxis.co.uk/
      http://www.unxis.com/

      So I would say it all seems like a scam to avoid having to do anything legal.

    4. Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? by happymellon · · Score: 1

      Slashdot ate half of what I wrote.

      http://www.unxis.ca/ Is the Google result, and seems to have been made in 5 mins, or by a colour blind manager.
      http://www.unxis.co.uk/ Pushes you to SCO.com
      http://www.unxis.com/ Sends you to a link farm
      http://unxis.it/ Is password locked.

  7. UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hello, Groklaw seems to imply a relationship between the two: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090711015440158 Regards, Aryeh Goretsky

    --
    Dexter is a good dog.
    1. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno - let's see yours first. Hypocrisy explosion!

    2. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 3, Funny
    3. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How is it relevant?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just sick and perverse. I just assumed he wanted to jerk off to it.

    5. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      What the link says is a former executive of SCO owns the domain name. And while it would be easy to build some paranoid scenario involving the evil Darl, a more reasonable speculation is that that a former executive with some knowledge of the assets sees some value in them outside of the IP lawsuit industry, which clearly failed for SCO...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That still doesn't make it relevant. SCO's case was garbage, PJ, whether a human being, the IBM legal team or Jesus Fucking Christ, did a considerable amount of analysis, and backed the analysis of experts in Unix, who said that McBride was nothing more than a common thug trying to use what his company did not possess to extort licensing fees from companies using Unix-like operating systems.

      At the end of the day, SCO failed because it had been taken over by dishonest and dishonorable scamsters.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Hi, Darl!

    8. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3

      Then don't go there. I haven't visited Groklaw in a helluva long time. But there seem to be a lot of people who somehow think they're being clever by kicking PJ's name and reputation around, and that bothers me. She provided an incredible important purpose, and deserves better than some stupid fucking AC on Slashdot mouthing off.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone show me a picture of the person who is bankrolling SCOx?

    10. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM makes SCO look amateurish compared to their software patent tactics. SCO is bad because they failed and IBM is great because they succeed at the very same thing SCO tried to do? Sense, you aren't making it son.

    11. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      t is revelvent because a lot of people think that GL is a front for IBM.

      A lot of people think an invisible man in the sky wants them to kill people, too. In both cases, they're best left to their delusions unless they actually act on their loony ideas, in which case it is incumbent on the rational people of the world to slap them down and get on with our lives.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Be that as it may, the fact is that SCO failed because they did not own what they claimed to own, and Groklaw played a part in that, at least so far as keeping the case out there even as the courts gave McBride and his legal team way too much rope. IBM can be a major asshole, but we were all on the same team at that point, and I'm damned glad that IBM didn't simply do the normal thing a large corporation would do and buy off the smaller company making the claims

      And, as I said, PJ's identity is irrelevant to all of this anyways. The only people who seemed obsessed with it were the crooks at SCO and a few incredibly dishonorable "journalists".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Junta · · Score: 2

      I would say that anyone trying to accurately report the state and actions of SCO can't help but to *seem* paranoid. You have to keep in mind how incredibly insane SCO people have repeatedly been. They charged at *IBM* with no case at all. They played all sorts of games with investors and regulatory agencies to cheat their way out of trouble and keeping as much money as possible. This 'Unxis' being nothing more than some sort of shell game to further misdirect things is not far fetched at all. It's not really paranoia if they really are out to get you.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    • Buyer is dsylexic and/or a terrible speller
    • pronounced "Un-cease" - litigation against Linux and others not over, not by a long shot
    • "U-N Cease" - a shadowy organization opposed to the United Nations
    • Buyer is a phishing site looking to cash in on people punching in URLs with fat fingers
    • Buyer and/or SCO waiting for someone to register unxis.com opportunistically, then they'll sue for $100 million
    1. Re:some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      As for last point - won't work if the domain buyer is located outside the US with different legislation. The courts may not even bother then.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      UnXis, pronounced as "unc-sis" short for "uncle-sister".
      All we can say is; this company is based in Alabama.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. More Info by mere mortals by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    Reading the comments where it does not get ummm erased is some what more informative at:
    http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&clear=1&pt=m

    Comments there are not scrutinized as much and therefore more interesting.

  10. What is UnXis? by srk · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know what UnXis is? Is it a real company or facade for something? Googling does not reveal much.

    1. Re:What is UnXis? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does anybody know what UnXis is?

      I think UnXis is the plural of Unix.

    2. Re:What is UnXis? by gman003 · · Score: 2

      No, you're thinking of "Unices", or perhaps "Unixen". I have never seen "Unxis" as the plural of "Unix", although it sort of looks like the negation of "axis".

    3. Re:What is UnXis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That domain is just some guy in North York, ON that does consulting (do a whois and look yourself).

      It's not related to this, so don't call the guy up and give him shit.

      The real domain, unxis.co.uk, as stated above, belongs to SCO since it redirects to SCO.

      The question is, does the guy in North York have a beef with SCO now?

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:What is UnXis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent reply! I'm sure WrongSizeGlass wasn't making a joke or anything.

  11. Hooray! by dexomn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ding! Dong! The witch is ... Wait what? OH DAMN IT!!!

  12. Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO! by redwhine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think Groklaw got it right... The UnXis URL http://unxis.co.uk/ takes you to a SCO page with the title "unXis - The future of UNIX is here"

  13. Re:Hooray! - Post to undo moderation by ancientt · · Score: 1

    doh! I was torn on whether to rate this as funny or not, but in the end, after admitting to myself that a snort did indeed escape, fresh and new or not, I admitted to myself that it was funny. Then I hit the wrong key. My apologies. But, worse, I hit troll and it certainly wasn't.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  14. Well, it WAS a good game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently someone at SCO just finished playing Kingdom Hearts 2?

  15. "Unixen?" by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

    On Dasher, on Prancer, on Comet and Unixen? Or more like Boxen, maybe?

    In all seriousness, Unixes is what I hear most often, with no regard given to its correctness. I think Unices sounds best, though it kinda comes off sounding like an acronymized UN agency. Your mileage may vary.

  16. Not a good start given the new name by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read UnXis as "unctuous":

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unctuous

    Adjective
    unctuous
    1. Oily or greasy.
    2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor.
    3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  17. UnXis = Sketchy by ALeader71 · · Score: 1

    Take a look at the "about us" page: UNXIS - About Us

    M.I.C.K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E. - who want's to sing along?

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
    1. Re:UnXis = Sketchy by gasmasher · · Score: 1

      These are not the droids you are looking for... see this reply.

  18. Sounds about right by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    it looks like SCO is trying to split off their still profitable software business from the dead and deader lawsuit business so when the whole thing gets dissolved by bankruptcy their creditors are left holding and empty bag.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding Ding Ding
      We have a winner!

    2. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're not trying to imply that SCO would do something disreputable?

  19. I see that all my usual meat is taken by symbolset · · Score: 2

    Normally I would post some information here that's relevant to the current squabble, some stuff that equates to the ultimate decimation of SCO and their trolling ways. But that's a foregone conclusion. Dissolution is waiting for SCO, and the only interesting thing about it is the way they do it.

    But that is settled, so if I want to educate and inform I have to go further afield. One of those ways is to teach folk about Ransom Love.

    You see, Ransom was a Linux geek, fully into the ecosystem. He understood why this would win, though he was ahead of his time by a decade. His company (caldera) made a Linux distro and it was seen for a while as the fusion of commercial VS free. He hit his IPO at the peak of the .com era, and for a time his company was worth billions of dollars. He looked at this and said, "well, if we're worth so much, why don't we buy Unix, which is worth so little today?" He was a true geek and admired the Unix in a way most of those who read this can't. And that was his undoing. He might have done it, but time and market forces blocked him.

    You see, the Unix Way isn't a software product. It's not a bulk of code. It's not a block of copyrights. It's a philosophy. It can't be owned, any more than the Scientific Method can be owned.

    So he bought it, and suffered therefrom. He's an IT geek for the Mormon church now. He'll carry what might-have-been to his dieing day, but he should let it go. He reached for a ring that was not there.

    Today mobile is taking over the IT revolution from desktops. The dominant forces are a derivation of BSD Unix (iOS) and Linux in the form of Android. Ransom was right. He was just too early, and some day we'll grant him his rightful place in the pantheon of tech visionaries. For now he suffers the fate of a local prophet, which is to say a local prophet is always stoned.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was doomed from the start. You can't ransom love.

    2. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to clarify something. What exactly did Ransom Love buy? Are you saying his company *did* buy the copyrights to Unix even though two trials and an appeals court say no, he did not?

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    3. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So he bought it, and suffered therefrom.

      No, he did not. The court cases have shown that he indeed failed to buy it, and that is what he suffered from.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ransom Love

      A name like that shouldn't exist outside of fiction.

    5. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Ah, there's the thing. He bought the business, not the religion.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken by lennier · · Score: 1

      Ah, there's the thing. He bought the business, not the religion.

      But not only didn't he buy the religion, he didn't even buy the copyright to the sacred texts.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  20. Singing frog by giorgist · · Score: 1

    maybe the see an opportunity is sue ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vH2rjUshk

  21. Wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO (which is bankrupt) wants to sell itself to UnXis (which is closely related). But the bankrupcy court will decide on feb 16th.

    The summary is from a SCO press release. And SCO are... uhm... lying bastards?

    Go and read Groklaw.

  22. Darl will have to take two to the back of the head by crovira · · Score: 1

    This man (and I use the term loosely,) has a major hard-on for Linux and, like a rabid dog, he's not going to unclench his jaws from the smoke he's holding until somebody puts him down.

    I can see him at the rense.com studios, well into his eighties, yelling into some one else's microphone, trying to get people to give a shit.

    He's just there for comic relief, to fill the air time between the commercials,, like the conspiracy theorists, the Hitler sympathizers and the other nuts who are paraded out to soak up the minutes.

    Its sad really.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  23. Re:Darl will have to take two to the back of the h by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    I suspect that Darl has a pile of cash stowed away in a bank on the Cayman Islands. I think he's a goddamn fucking asshole, but he is not stupid. He did all that bullshit because someone paid him to do it. Of course, this will remain speculation given the tight lips at the banks on the Cayman Islands. It will never be proven, since it was all probably handled through trusted middlemen. Well, maybe some pissed off bank employee will pass something off to WikiLeaks, but I would not bother to hold my breath waiting for that one.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  24. Classic two man scam by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You do remember that most of that SCO money that was pissed away on legal delaying tactics went to Darl's brother don't you?
    It was a two man scam.
    Linux was just the brand of the company car, IBM was the wall and Darl's brother's legal firm was the panel shop that did the work at a huge markup. Huge amounts of money funnelled out and no need to hide it.
    The entire thing really had nothing to do with linux and was just a scam on the SCO shareholders with a possible bit of pump and dump on the side.

    1. Re:Classic two man scam by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You do remember that the money to fund the lawsuit against Linux was paid by Microsoft, don't you? Just because someone was getting rich doesn't mean the whole thing had nothing to do with Linux. Nice try, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Classic two man scam by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Please have the decency of letting the drugs wear off before posting replies. A few dollars to jump on the bandwagon doesn't make it a huge conspiracy by some evil mastermind stroking a cat.

  25. Ho-hum. by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

    Boy, Slashdot is really fired up on this one. I'm pretty sure the judge is going to slap them down for trying to pawn off the lawsuit to a deeper pocket.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  26. Troll by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

    97 comments so far, and no "I hope you paid your $400 licensing fees, you cocksmoking teabaggers!" troll nostalgia yet?

    For shame, Slashdot, for shame.

    --
    If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    1. Re:Troll by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      There was, but you missed it. Here you go.

      Apparently the price has increased. Probably inflation.

  27. I miss the old trolls... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    That's because you are an ignorant cunt. They owned unix and linux you know.

    I think he's just using it as an excuse to avoid paying his $699 license fee. Must be some sort of cock-smoking teabagger.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  28. Maybe UnXis group *is* Scox by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    02.06.11
    The UNIX Battle Moves to Former SCO Executives (Who Own unXis Domains)

    Summary: SCO gets more money for anti-Linux litigation, thanks to an alleged purchase from an entity tied to former SCO managers

    http://techrights.org/2011/02/06/hans-bayer-unxis-payola/

  29. Re:Darl will have to take two to the back of the h by lennier · · Score: 1

    has a major hard-on for Linux and, like a rabid dog, he's not going to unclench his jaws from the smoke he's holding... yelling into some one else's microphone... Hitler

    Ding! You win the coveted George Orwell Octopus In The Melting Pot Award for Gratuitious Weirding of Metaphors.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  30. Thank you, thank you. by crovira · · Score: 1

    I would like to than the members of the academy, my parents and the kids upstairs from me for giving me the incentive for mixing metaphors with such abandon.

    I look forward to many more chances to delight my audience in the coming years.

    [three hour speech elided]

    Once again, thank you.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.