Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:06 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Having almost disappeared completely late last year, SCO says it has been resuscitated by a new financing plan. Under the terms of the deal, Stephen Norris Capital Partners and "its partners from the Middle East" will supply up to $100 million, enabling SCO to reorganize and launch a new series of products. SNCP will gain a controlling interest in the company, and take it private, allowing it to slip out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Update: As part of the reorganisation, Darl McBride will be let go. Buried in the proposed MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Unix vendor and Linux litigator SCO and SNCP is the note that "upon the effective date of the Proposed Plan of Reorganization, the existing CEO of the Company, Darl McBride, will resign immediately."
Order by: Score:
D/\MN IT!
by bryanv on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:14 UTC
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

Just as I was starting to think there might be a shred of justice in the cosmos, some group of turd-burglers comes along and ruins it for all of us.

Reply Score: 15

RE: D/\MN IT!
by umccullough on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:19 UTC in reply to "D/\MN IT!"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Just as I was starting to think there might be a shred of justice in the cosmos, some group of turd-burglers comes along and ruins it for all of us.


Well, we can hope anyway:

"<snip>SNCP will gain a controlling interest in the company<snip>"

Maybe they'll fire all the idiots ;)

edit: (would anyone be left?)

Edited 2008-02-14 21:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: D/\MN IT!
by FellowConspirator on Fri 15th Feb 2008 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: D/\MN IT!"
FellowConspirator Member since:
2007-12-13

"Controlling Interest" ?!

WTF - The market cap is $2M, if they've got $100M, they could buy it outright and take it private at a tiny fraction of the cost...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: D/\MN IT!
by IanSVT on Fri 15th Feb 2008 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: D/\MN IT!"
IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Taking it private would probably set them up as being liable. And seeing as SCO has Novell's foot on its neck, that's not a good position to put yourself in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: DuMb NITs!
by glarepate on Fri 15th Feb 2008 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: D/\MN IT!"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

[I don't mean you Ian...]

Well, here are a few details that may give you a new impression of how The Deal works.

They are putting up $2 million in a trust to pay off current stockholders. Don't want to drive away [the small] investors now, do they? Well. that's about $0.091/share. This news has pushed the stock price up to $0.105, so the soon-to-be-losers in the lawsuit lottery have already lined up and paid their money to be suckered.

They are providing a line of credit for the SCOfflaws to pay Novell and IBM and their other creditors, such as the local pizza company and their expert witlesses that didn't help them in court (no mention of RedHat's Lanham Act suit), @ 17% interest... How much liability is there down the road? Unknown, possibly in excess of a $billion or two? But at that interest rate it at least makes a great write-off in case the investment company scores big on something that actually succeeds.

They do intend to take it private. But if Novell gets $30 million and IBM gets a settlement on the order of multi-hundreds of $millions (possibly $billions if they claim intentional malfeasance, just their legal expenses are running close to $40 million already) then that line of credit and the APR that comes with it will be less valuable than a SCOsource Pee In Your Eye license (no refunds if they lose, but users requested the license to compensate us for our Eye Pee, yeah, right).

Reply Score: 2

ahhhh!
by porcel on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:14 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Is this some sick scary movie where the decapitated monster won't f--king die?

Reply Score: 27

RE: ahhhh!
by melkor on Fri 15th Feb 2008 14:08 UTC in reply to "ahhhh!"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

lemme see...

SCO wars...

The SCO strikes back

The return of the IBM

prequels:

The phantom SCO menace
Attack of the SCO
Revenge of the SCO...

sounds like a good movie series to me ;-)

Help me Obi Wan Sco!

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Can't they just let it die?
by aesiamun on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:15 UTC
aesiamun
Member since:
2005-06-29

What does SCO offer as a product? They've lost the lawsuits they brought forward to IBM, are being sued by Novell, what's left?

I'm expecting more lawsuits from them now that they have $100M to continue forward.

BTW what other investments has this company made in companies? I'd be interested in seeing a list.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Can't they just let it die?
by kamil_chatrnuch on Fri 15th Feb 2008 11:46 UTC in reply to "Can't they just let it die?"
kamil_chatrnuch Member since:
2005-07-07

i think, the (only) interesting part of their product portfolio is the mobile part.

more on: http://www.scomobile.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE: Can't they just let it die?
by autumnlover on Fri 15th Feb 2008 13:14 UTC in reply to "Can't they just let it die?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

What does SCO offer as a product?


Maybe they should became a hardware company and contact mr. Bill McEwen to discuss their involvement in releasing that "new hardware" for him ? ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't they just let it die?
by glarepate on Fri 15th Feb 2008 19:19 UTC in reply to "Can't they just let it die?"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

They lost 20% of their sales when they sued IBM and IBM then stopped carrying their OS.

Reply Score: 1

Middle eastern investors eh?
by atezun on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:26 UTC
atezun
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, someone's getting conned here.

Reply Score: 4

No more bankruptcy protection?
by Priest on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:32 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

Why do I have a feeling that due to some loophole, they are no longer in bankruptcy protection, but still not obligated to pay back any of their former debt (ie. to Novel)?

They lost the previous cases and then filed for bankruptcy protection just before Novel/IBM etc. were able to seek damages.

It was determined that Novel is the rightful owner of UNIX.

So they now have the right to appeal the former cases and go back to court, but due to bankruptcy protection they are protected from having to pay Novel?

I guess I am headed over to Groklaw to see.

Reply Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Why do I have a feeling that due to some loophole, they are no longer in bankruptcy protection, but still not obligated to pay back any of their former debt (ie. to Novel)?


Basically when a company files for bankruptcy protection, anyone that has any monetary interest in that company becomes a creditor (including the stockholders).

While in bankruptcy protection, these creditors are basically involved in negotiations with the court and the company to come to an agreement on how the company will emerge from bankruptcy. In many cases, the biggest creditors end up becoming partial owners of the company based on the amount they are owed - other times they simply remain a creditor once the company emerges.

My guess is that the $100M is primarily being used to payoff some creditors - possibly for amounts quite a bit smaller than was owed (this is usually part of the negotiations). This will allow SCO to emerge without fear of being sued and liquidated into oblivion by their remaining creditors.

It can be different for any scenario - in the end, SCO will be privately held, and the smaller stockholders will get the biggest shaft.

edit: clarification

Edited 2008-02-14 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Basically when a company files for bankruptcy protection, anyone that has any monetary interest in that company becomes a creditor (including the stockholders).


Sort of. There's a big difference between secured and unsecured creditors.

At the end of the day, the companies assets are distributed among the secured creditors, and whatever is left over gets divied among the unsecured ones.

SCO's common stock is not secured, so the shareholders would most likely have nothing left to show after the dissolution of the company.

This is why Novell was pushing to court to annex funds from SCO prior to allowing them to file chapter 11; a court order doesn't make them a secured creditor, and they didn't want to see the cash that SCO still had on hand being divied up to anyone else.

It still begs the question, though, of what assets, intangible or not, that SCO is holding and would encourage an investment of this sort. I can't believe that whatever is left of their customer base is worth that much as an acquisition, and I think the courts have nullified SCO's IP claims. Anybody investing in SCO at this point is holding out that they may still have legal fuel left to sue the world. Or somebody is hoping optimistically that IBM will relent and just buyout SCO to make the lawsuit go away, which is unlikely at this point. It's curious.

My guess is that the $100M is primarily being used to payoff some creditors - possibly for amounts quite a bit smaller than was owed (this is usually part of the negotiations). This will allow SCO to emerge without fear of being sued and liquidated into oblivion by their remaining creditors.


I don't think SCO had that much in outstanding debt/liability, they could easily pay down their debt, even with Novell and their law firm, and still have cash left over. So something fishy is going on here.

It can be different for any scenario - in the end, SCO will be privately held, and the smaller stockholders will get the biggest shaft.


Well, that is certainly true, except that all stockholders will probably get the biggest shaft. The smart ones dumped it long ago, anyways, and the execs have either cashed out or probably cut side deals prior to this financing being arranged.

Reply Score: 3

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Just to clarify, if a company is being dissolved, it ceases to exist. Finished forever. The assets are sold off and the proceeds go to creditors. Common shareholders get nothing, unless there is a surplus remaining after all creditor claims are settled (very unlikely).

But SCO isn't being dissolved, it's merely in bancrupcy. So what will happen with the SCO stock? I think it'll probably be cancelled and a new stock will be issued when the company emerges from bancrupcy.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

But SCO isn't being dissolved, it's merely in bancrupcy. So what will happen with the SCO stock? I think it'll probably be cancelled and a new stock will be issued when the company emerges from bancrupcy.


It's in chapter 11 and trying to avoid chapter 7. I thought that "private" meant no publically traded stock?

But then, SCO Group has always been privately owned, for most practical purposes. The investors have traditionally been a small, close knit group. Any resemblance that SCO's maneuvering might bear to 1980's TV series like Dallas, Falcon Crest, and Dynasty are purely *not* conincidental.

In this season's cliff hanger, J.R.^WDarl has gotten the boot. Miss Elly is still tied up in a basement somewhere. Angela just got the winery back, after living at the Del Oro spa for most of a season. Southfork is on fire. And we are all praying that this is really just Pam's dream.

Reply Score: 2

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

SCO is a publicly-traded company; it was originally listed on NASDAQ but now trades on the Pink Sheets, the stock market's ward for the terminally ill. Most of the stock may have been held by the company insiders in the past, but today they hold only 33% combined. Insiders probably got out during any of the many stock-pumping lawsuit schemes.

Today's price, 10.5 cents per share:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOXQ.PK

Reply Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

SCO is a publicly traded company. The stock was listed as NASDAQ but is now traded on the Pink Sheets, the stock market's ward for the terminally ill. Today's price, 10.5c per share:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOXQ.PK

Perhaps in the past the company execs and insiders did own a majority of the company's stock, but it seems that none of the stock is currently owned by company executives; the execs probably sold their shares during one of the many stock-pumping lawsuits.

Current 'insider' shareholders are listed here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=SCOXQ.PK
Note that the two company executives hold 0 shares, and McBride is not even listed.

Reply Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

SCO is a publicly traded company. The stock was listed as NASDAQ but is now traded on the Pink Sheets, the stock market's ward for the terminally ill. Today's price, 10.5c per share:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOXQ.PK

Perhaps in the past the company execs and insiders did own a majority of the company's stock, but it seems that none of the stock is currently owned by company executives; the execs probably sold their shares during one of the many stock-pumping lawsuits.


Current 'insider' shareholders are listed here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=SCOXQ.PK
Note that the two company executives hold 0 shares, and McBride is not even listed.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Would you please repeat that? I couldn't quite hear you the first three times. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I don't know what the heck is going on. The replies aren't showing up on the website page. ;)

Aha! I didn't notice the tiny "read more of this thread" button, so I thought my posts weren't being submitted...

This new format is going to take some getting used to.

Edited 2008-02-15 20:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

a court order doesn't make them a secured creditor


This is true.

However SCO has been convicted of converting Novell's funds to their own use. This makes them criminally liable. The hearing on April 29th is to determine the amount that they are liable for. That does make them a secured creditor in the anount determined once the trial that they had put on hold resumes. Since the money was acquired through criminal means Novell gets paid BEFORE the other creditors.

Edited 2008-02-18 15:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

" They lost the previous cases and then filed for bankruptcy protection just before Novel/IBM etc. were able to seek damages."

The IBM case never got concluded, that still has to go through the system first.

" It was determined that Novel is the rightful owner of UNIX."

No it wasnt,

***The court found that Santa Cruz did obtain ownership and licensing rights to UNIX and UnixWare but that the pre-1996 copyrights were excluded.***

Translation: There are still appeals and other legal matters to sift through so that we can come to a conclusion. Novell holds copyrights to UNIX making them a copyright holder, not a owner of the UNIX system, that is the reason Novell just cant open source UNIX.

" So they now have the right to appeal the former cases and go back to court, but due to bankruptcy protection they are protected from having to pay Novell?"

They actually dont have to pay Novell anything until all appeals and other legal matters are done. So once again whether SCO wins, whether SCO loses its just a longer waiting game.

Reply Score: 1

hmmm
by poundsmack on Thu 14th Feb 2008 21:33 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

so this is where the money from those scam emails wound up going.... to breathe new life into SCO. well in times like this there is only one thing to do, "its time to kick @$$ and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum." (cut to a scene of duke nukem running into the sco building in what apears to be a post apocolyptic nightmear)

Reply Score: 4

Wait and see
by sbergman27 on Thu 14th Feb 2008 22:12 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

SCO has been pretty well disarmed by the court. They may really have no option but to try to make it with a legigimate business. Or (Where's Waldo? Where's Waldo?) maybe Microsoft thought there was still enough FUD value remaining to justify sinking, or persuading someone else to sink, $100M more into them. I doubt it, though. They are still under the consent decree in the US for another couple of years. The EU has taken notice of them. And you can bet that other governments around the world have taken note of the EU's success. And even the piddly bit of success that the US has had. Balmer has clearly proclaimed that he considers Linux to be Microsoft's top competitor. Can they really risk, at this point, to be caught red handed participating in an illegal scheme to destabilize their top competitor?

Many here may not be aware that SCO and Caldera both had pretty solid businesses not that many years ago. Before there *was* a Linux, SCO was the knight in shining armor representing Unix in the land of x86. Yeah, they made a lot of mistakes back then, like all the Unix vendors did.

But IMO, if the new owners jettisoned Darl and the gang, and made a go of it in a legitimate way, it would give me the warm fuzzies. Because before all this litigious crap started, and before Linux grew up in the late 90's, SCO was my hero.

Edited 2008-02-14 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 7

SCO is like rhubarb ...
by Isolationist on Thu 14th Feb 2008 22:26 UTC
Isolationist
Member since:
2006-05-28

difficult to kill off

Reply Score: 0

RE: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by TaterSalad on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:03 UTC in reply to "SCO is like rhubarb ..."
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

The difference is rhubarb has a sweet enjoyable flavor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by sbergman27 on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO is like rhubarb ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The difference is rhubarb has a sweet enjoyable flavor.


But they do kinda go together.

Think this would look good on Darl's face?

http://tinyurl.com/ywt44l

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by tyrione on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO is like rhubarb ..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

The difference is rhubarb has a sweet enjoyable flavor.


Sugar makes everything more sweet. Seriously, rhubarb pie isn't sweet without the many cups of sugar added to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by orfanum on Fri 15th Feb 2008 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO is like rhubarb ..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Except the leaves...don't...eat..the..leaves...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by B. Janssen on Fri 15th Feb 2008 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO is like rhubarb ..."
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and
stew
them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb
does.
Now you tell me what you know.

-- Groucho Marx

OK, I'm going now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SCO is like rhubarb ...
by orfanum on Fri 15th Feb 2008 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO is like rhubarb ..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

'Honk, honk!'

- Harpo Marx

Edited - why hasn't the reply function indented this automatically?!

Edited 2008-02-15 11:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sco shakeup
by thebackwash on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:04 UTC
thebackwash
Member since:
2005-07-06

I hope they keep Darl on board. I could go for a few more laughs in my life.

Reply Score: 1

RE: sco shakeup
by Googol on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:16 UTC in reply to "sco shakeup"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

SCO ist the new Ubuntu ! ;) omg.. can't they die with style..?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: sco shakeup
by sbergman27 on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE: sco shakeup"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

SCO ist the new Ubuntu ! ;) omg.. can't they die with style..?


Dying?

http://tinyurl.com/ywdd79

http://tinyurl.com/2kuwmc

http://desktoplinux.com/files/misc/2007-distributions-sm.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/2hs6fa

The following numbers are snapshots from a couple of days ago:

---
Ubuntu Forums:

Currently online: 7861 (671 members and 7190 guests)
Most users ever online was 12,818,
--

--
PCLinuxOS Forums:

Currently Online: 50 Guests, 20 Users
Most Online Ever: 511 (June 30, 2007, 01:47:52 PM)
--

-
Fedora Forums:

4940 (183 members and 4757 guests)
Most online Ever: 11706, 2006-10-30 at 03:36 PM PST.
--

--
OpenSuse Forums:

125 guests, 9 members 0 anonymous members
Most users ever online was 339 on Feb 6 2008, 01:02 AM
--

Yes, this is just a recycling of one of my previous posts. But recycling is good! ;-)

Ubuntu is a strong member of our community, and the success that it has achieved in its area benefits us all. Just as with all the major distros, even if their areas of specialty do not lend themselves to garnering as large a number of users.

Stop throwing rocks at the pillars of our community. And by that, I don't just mean Ubuntu, but all the players who benefit us so much. Players whose importance we do not recognize... until they are gone.

Yeah, I saw the smiley. But I lived through so much back stabbing and sour grapes reactions during the Unix wars that now I just jump in and say "that's stupid" and ask questions later. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: sco shakeup
by Googol on Fri 15th Feb 2008 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sco shakeup"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

err.. I was refering to the "great new products" they announced and which no doubt will take the crowd by storm... I am guessing Open Desktop here which will be an Open Server-spin-off. It's all there - rock solid Unix foundations, slam KDE 4.0 on top - sorted! Costs you 699 ;)

Reply Score: 2

...and in a related story
by diskinetic on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:28 UTC
diskinetic
Member since:
2005-12-09

SCO recently noticed that they had come into a surprisingly large amount of money, and immediately began suing themselves... and Coke Zero.

Seriously, give ME the 100 mil and I promise to not bother anyone.

Reply Score: 4

Snippets from Groklaw
by pepa on Thu 14th Feb 2008 23:41 UTC
pepa
Member since:
2005-07-08

Mr. Norris acted as a principal financial advisor to Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Al Saud of Kingdom Holding Company, in structuring and negotiating the re-capitalization of Citibank, which returned over $15 billion in profits on about $590 million of equity invested.

"Gates and Alwaleed have collaborated for at least two years. After attending a dinner at Gates's home in Bellevue, Washington, in early 2004, Alwaleed agreed to explore ways to assist Microsoft's expansion in Saudi Arabia." This investment is all part of Microsoft's ongoing battle of disruption against Linux.

This investment is probably not going to be directly and obviously profitable, but it might buy SCO more time for FUD.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Snippets from Groklaw
by google_ninja on Fri 15th Feb 2008 04:10 UTC in reply to "Snippets from Groklaw"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

ZOMG BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!1

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Snippets from Groklaw
by pepa on Fri 15th Feb 2008 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Snippets from Groklaw"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

OK, it might not even prolong the FUD much. To up the ante on the Black Helicopters: it might be an attempt to cover up some nasty links that SCO has with 'certain parties'..!

Or do you have a reasonable explanation why this offer has come??

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Snippets from Groklaw
by glarepate on Fri 15th Feb 2008 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Snippets from Groklaw"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Sure!! This is a completely reasonable offer to help them stay in business so that they can transition their unbelievable wireless products to .NET. Nothing to do with FUD, backroom backstabbing or Saudi Princes investing in dead operating system resellers who have NEVER EVER made a profit in their entire history (now that the court has ruled that the only profit they ever declared was Novell's money which tSCOg illegally converted to their own use).

Besides, that's not a black helicopter, it's an IBM lawyer. One of a sizeable group referred to as the Nazgul...

Reply Score: 2

Zombies are back!
by kajaman on Fri 15th Feb 2008 00:11 UTC
kajaman
Member since:
2006-01-06

Ha ha ha, you lost big part of your flesh Darl, but you still want to bite.

Worms and hyenas are much better than they are.

Seriously, I'm waiting for next ELER strip (http://geekz.co.uk). Or maybe UserFriendly will be first! ;D

Reply Score: 1

Redmond is in the Middle East?
by unclefester on Fri 15th Feb 2008 00:55 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I thought Redmond was in the North West rather than the Middle East.

Reply Score: 2

Sell me some UNIX
by johndaly on Fri 15th Feb 2008 01:07 UTC
johndaly
Member since:
2006-01-16

Before people get to negative, SCO dose have two versions of UNIX, some other productsand a customer base and I'm sure there are enough people working there (just not the ones leading the company the last few years) that know that selling a product to customers is good way to make money.
Besides, the article sounds a bit like SCO is going to get coped up and sold of in portions. Either way, there is still some money to be made for the vultures.

Edited 2008-02-15 01:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sell me some UNIX
by sbergman27 on Fri 15th Feb 2008 01:25 UTC in reply to "Sell me some UNIX"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

They have SCO OpenServer. Which is pretty outdated, but has a certain following among business accounting and point of sale ISVs. Unixware is not quite so outdated, but I can't say much about it because I am less familiar with it. It's what System V Release 4 became.

If I were one of the ISV's dependent upon OpenServer, I think I would have jumped ship long before now. But I've spoken with reps of a couple of them... *technical representatives*... and they seemed pretty dense. Tried to tell me that they needed SCO for their customers because it was easy to use, whereas RedHat was difficult and cryptic. You know how you can be having a conversation with someone and they suddenly say something so bizarre that you look around to make sure that you have a clear shot at the exit and carefully back away? That's just what I did.

I haven't kept up. But it would not surprise me if some of these companies have retained their faith in SCO even to this day, despite all the evidence which should have sent any sane company runnning for cover.

Reply Score: 5

Darl is Gone
by tpaws on Fri 15th Feb 2008 02:46 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02
Stupid
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 15th Feb 2008 03:03 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

As part of the agreement SCO may use some of that $100 million as fuel for their existing anti-Linux lawsuits.

Why can't SCO and their outdated/inferior Unix garbage that infringes on Novell's copyrights just die?

Reply Score: 4

Launch new products?
by Ricardo_NY on Fri 15th Feb 2008 03:13 UTC
Ricardo_NY
Member since:
2007-02-12

enabling SCO to reorganize and launch a new series of products.

New products like...er... lawsuits?

Reply Score: 3

America must be destroyed
by Soulbender on Fri 15th Feb 2008 03:47 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"its partners from the Middle East"


I'm thinking it's Al-Qaeda's new plan for destroying America.

Reply Score: 8

RE: America must be destroyed
by Alex Forster on Fri 15th Feb 2008 06:45 UTC in reply to "America must be destroyed"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Careful with the racism. This site has a pretty international audience, and I can't find any indication of satire in your comment.

Edited 2008-02-15 06:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: America must be destroyed
by Soulbender on Fri 15th Feb 2008 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE: America must be destroyed"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Say what? What racism? I dont see why I'd have to put silly smileys in order for people to understand it's a joke. If someone's too dense to get it without having it pointed out to them, tough luck.

Edit: Gee, I guess that's why it's modded down. No humor please, we're on osnews. This must be what Thom feels like every time he posts a comic.

Edited 2008-02-15 07:47 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: America must be destroyed
by righard on Fri 15th Feb 2008 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: America must be destroyed"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Comparing the Middle East with Al-Qaïda is not so much racism, but it is stigmatization. It is if I where to keep comparing North America with the KKK. Indeed not a good thing to do on a site with an international audience.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Ok folks, let's continue this discussion without mentioning Al Qai... Al Qae... those terrorists, or the KKK.

Edited 2008-02-15 08:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: America must be destroyed
by righard on Fri 15th Feb 2008 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: America must be destroyed"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Are we allowed to mention those SCO terrorists? ;)

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Soulbender,

I've noticed that the "mod-downers" are very quick on the keyboard. The "mod-uppers" read and think. And then mod... or decline to mod... accordingly.

Humor is a particlularly thorny concept for those quick-on-the-draw detractors whom we face even on forums where we might naively think we wouldn't have to worry about such things.

And the person who is the provider of the humor is in a bit of a dilemma. Should one include so many smileys that it drowns what was intended to be a dry... very dry... joke? Or should one simply post and let the hot heads have a field day, hoping that saner, and more fun loving heads prevail?

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! ;-)

Edited 2008-02-15 18:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: America must be destroyed
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 15th Feb 2008 08:14 UTC in reply to "RE: America must be destroyed"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

If you honestly don't see satire in the concept of terrorists financing ineffective FUD against Linux.. *shrug*

The original comment wasn't exactly riotously funny, but as is often the case the humour comes from the responses. "(no) indication of satire" haha

Reply Score: 6

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

"HAY ALEX WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DONT GET IT? THE TERRORISTS BOUGHT SCO!! HAHAHAH"

You know, I thought long and hard about whether or not I should further explain myself in my original post. I was really hoping you guys would be able to realize that the humor was not missed on me--that that was not what I meant when I said I didn't detect any satire. He obviously was making a joke. My point was that the joke was made on an understood implication that "all middle-easterners are terrorists," which was never itself satirized.

I can't believe I have to explain that.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

My point was that the joke was made on an understood implication that "all middle-easterners are terrorists,"


No it wasn't. The implication was that Al-Qaeda is based in the Middle East. That's a fact. How you come to the conclusion that it meant all arabs is a mystery to me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Al Queda is racist?
by glarepate on Fri 15th Feb 2008 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE: America must be destroyed"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Are you saying that Jose Padilla isn't a Muslim?

Reply Score: 1

Where are...
by obsidian on Fri 15th Feb 2008 06:28 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

... a few good hefty wooden stakes when you need 'em...

Reply Score: 3

This is great.
by Quag7 on Fri 15th Feb 2008 12:10 UTC
Quag7
Member since:
2005-07-28

I hope this never ends. They're too good a villain, and this is too good a story, and finally there are some new characters being introduced.

Reply Score: 2

Seeya Darl
by cypress on Fri 15th Feb 2008 13:48 UTC
cypress
Member since:
2005-07-11

Lol. Can you imagine where Darl will be working next? I'm putting my money on the local McDonalds.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Seeya Darl
by glarepate on Fri 15th Feb 2008 19:54 UTC in reply to "Seeya Darl"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Mickey D's? He'll have to learn how to use the POS system running under Open Sewer first. Not much chance he'll succeed at that based on his lack of understanding of other basic ideas.

Reply Score: 1

Maybe they'll sue their new financier
by yakirz on Fri 15th Feb 2008 13:59 UTC
yakirz
Member since:
2006-05-11

just for old time's sake...

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Why not? They've sued their business partner, their upstream license provider, attacked the community which gave Caldera life in the first place, And they are being represented in bankruptcy court by one of their larger creditors.

If this were on TV, I'd turn it off, on account of it being too unbelievable to even bother with.

Sometimes truth really *is* stranger than fiction!

Reply Score: 2

Riddle Me This, Riddle Me That
by WarpKat on Fri 15th Feb 2008 16:25 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

When is a fish flopping on the deck of a boat no longer a fish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|/
WHEN IT'S A ZOMBIE FISH!!!!@#$@!%%%@#%$@#%

Reply Score: 1

Where's the downside for Darl McBride?
by tomcat on Sat 16th Feb 2008 04:23 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Darl has already pulled down some serious coin from SCO, Ikon, Novell, SBI, and others. People who were hoping to see him selling pencils in the airport or washing windshields at traffic lights are going to be sorely disappointed. He'll move on to something new and different. Same old, same old, keep moving, folks...

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You're right, of course. But sometimes the universe has a way of doling out justice in a circuitous way. Wouldn't surprise me if Darl doesn't have an unplanned meeting with Rod Serling in his future. And *that* would be an eppisode that I would most certainly want to tape.

But aside from that... I wonder how much pride and personal satisfaction he derives from being Darl McBride? Sometimes, the justice is served from within. I don't care how much money he made out of all this; I wouldn't trade places with him.

Reply Score: 2

A great move
by robertojdohnert on Sat 16th Feb 2008 14:24 UTC
robertojdohnert
Member since:
2005-07-12

If SCO has no chance and IF Linux indeed doesn't violate Unix IP, then they will die. For right now, sit back and enjoy the show. I dont trust Novell and as always I will wait for this thing to go to court and come to a conclusion based on fact, not on a decision based on demonizing of a company

Reply Score: 1

RE: A great move
by sbergman27 on Sat 16th Feb 2008 16:10 UTC in reply to "A great move"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I will wait for this thing to go to court and come to a conclusion based on fact, not on a decision based on demonizing of a company


Oh, come on. How much evidence do you need? Judge Dale Kimball, after giving SCO every benefit of every doubt, and all the rope they have asked for, has already expressed surprise that with all of that, they have failed to produce any credible evidence to support their cases.

Legal protocol must be observered, of course. But you are being unreasonable, IMO, to reserve forming any opinion, given the dearth of evidence which SCO has been able to produce in 5 years of legal proceedings. Being cautious is one thing. But one can be so overly cautious as to cross the line into irrationality.

Reply Score: 2