In <20080216011705.GA14...@trebor.iglou.com> Bob Stockler:
[Snip...]
> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief
Sorry, no rest for the weary. I'm onto this scam 5+ years, and you're not shutting me up, now, or actually ever. This is Usenet, remember?
OTOH, I do believe you've earned a well-deserved Darwin Award. Enjoy.
<PLONK>
-- Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS * Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots. Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT. Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Bob Stockler wrote: > Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
The SCO Group may be not dead (yet), but they are hardly anything else than a *zombie*, and a quite pathetic one.
> As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix, > I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
Santa Cruz Operation was great. The SCO Group is a spawn of Satan. It will be dealt with accordingly.
> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO > nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.
It will give extra time for The SCO Group to come to realize the UnixWare kernel they put into their OpenServer 6.0 product is Novell's intelectual property, and that as they only bought distribution rights to such property, now they own royalties to Novell for every copy sold of OpenServer 6.0.
Good move! Can we call this to go fishing and end up been trapped in the very hook? Hell, yeah!
Santa Cruz Operation was paying royalties to Microsoft in the past for many years for their use of Xenix. Now, The SCO Group, if they have any future left, will be paying royalties to Novell for MANY years to come.
> Bob Stockler wrote: > > Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
> > As being a user, seller
> Typical salesman who believes his own lies! Good thing > you don't sell used cars.
> > and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix, > > I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
> The official birthdate of unix was Jan 1, 1970. SCO has > been one of its bastards.
> > Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's > > good news for me.
> Looks like you read only the headlines. :-) Whatatwit!
> > Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO > > nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.
> You're just another scomanual thumper. Some folks just can't > help but try to prop up the underdog.
The influx of $100M from some Saudi Arabian group to prop up SCO will have an effect. But, no one knows yet exactly how big of a hole they have put themselves in. They still have lots and lots of baggage (royalty payments, counter suits, a diminishing user base, and a diminishing work force) that has to be dealt with, and my guess has it that there is more to this cash-cow than meets the eye. Couple that with the possibility of two ethnically and religiously diverse business groups hopping in bed together, hmmmm, sounds like the basis for a real dispute over ownership could be brewing.
I'll hold my judgement and opinions for a later date. But, as long as the SCO Group remains under the current management team, they'll be frowned upon and viewed as a company that wouldn't and couldn't participate in an industry unless they could totally control it.
Tony Lawrence wrote: > On Feb 15, 8:17 pm, Bob Stockler <b...@trebor.iglou.com> wrote: >> Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
>> As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix, >> I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
>> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's >> good news for me.
>> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO >> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will b
> My guess is that somebody is just throwing away their money.
> I'm not anti-SCO, but this is a company that has been stepping on its > own feet for more than two decades.
> I don't think another 100 Mill is going to change that.
There is a market niche there: while the lack of new product from SCO, and the absolute loathing they've earned from the developer community and the legal burdens from their fundamentally fraudulent lawsuits, a new set of owners might be the best way to take what few competent people are left and use them to provide a set of maintenance services and migration utilities for the old customers, and might make a tidy little sum of money doing so.
On Feb 16, 8:27 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a market niche there: while the lack of new product from SCO, and the > absolute loathing they've earned from the developer community and the legal > burdens from their fundamentally fraudulent lawsuits, a new set of owners > might be the best way to take what few competent people are left and use them > to provide a set of maintenance services and migration utilities for the old > customers, and might make a tidy little sum of money doing so.
Given that (a) the court's ruled that Novell holds all the copyrights (b) the contract reverts everything to Novell anyway on the event of Santa Cruz or its successors going bankrupt (which Novell was apparently concerned with at the time) and (c) Novell has committed itself to Linux, my guess would be that Novell will wait for the dust to settle, pick up their pieces, and provide just the sort of maintenance and migration consultancy you describe.
The proposed cash infusion wouldn't even pay the interest on the potential damages from the IBM counter-suit. And if Novell has taken back their codebase, it's questionable what any SCOX remnants would be able to offer to customers other than continued uncertainty.
On Feb 15, 6:17 pm, Bob Stockler <b...@trebor.iglou.com> wrote:
> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's > good news for me.
Are you talking about the illusory $100M? The one Maureen O'Gara is so enamored with? You know, the big shiny white knight that is going to save SCOX from the evil communist terrorists?
What part of "Everything SCOX touches is scam" did you miss?
However, for that right to be exercised and for the assignment and delegation to occur, the exerciser / assignor / delegator must exist. Also, the proposed order (docket #346-4) would create an entitlement to compensation for this apparently non-existing entity.
If no Delaware LLC by the name "Stephen Norris Capital Partners, LLC" existed on February 13, then please file, at least 25 days before the hearing, an amended MOU that has been executed by an accurately identified non-debtor party that is some existing legal person, e.g., the Florida LLC (#L07000078273); the Delaware limited partnership (#4052355); some newly-formed Delaware LLC (for which a certificate of formation has been filed before the date of execution of the amended MOU); or some Stephen L. Norris (presumably the one admitted to the D.C. Bar on June 1, 1977) in his capacity as an individual.
