Remember SCO? They just don't know when to quit, do they? "The Department of Justice's Trustee program, which has finally had enough of SCO's stalling tactics and failed reorganization attempts, has filed a motion to transition the company to Chapter 7. SCO CEO Darl McBride says that the company will oppose the motion and will present a new reorg plan to the court."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2008-08-19
Member since:2005-10-11
Member since:2007-10-18
Member since:
2008-10-25
Member since:2005-07-06
What I would love to see is for Oracle to purchase SCO for a song then merge any IP and code into what one could dub "UNIX Foundation" to which Novell, OpenSolaris and SCO assets (plus any other UNIX vendor who wishes to through their IP into the basket) to be all pooled together and operate as a non-profit organisation as to avoid any future rangling.
Maybe then the next phase will be IBM, HP, and Oracle all working together on a single UNIX from the ground up whose differentiators are the middleware, support and management tools/integration which make the difference between each one they sell. It would not only provide a unified face to scare off Linux encroachment into traditional UNIX markets but also show a unified face to the Windows world that there is one UNIX - all running on different architectures but all compatible with each other from the ground up.
Member since:2009-04-23
Member since:2007-02-17
(1) SCO don't own the copyrights to UNIX, Novell does.
(2) What SCO does own is the lawsuits it started ... and lost ... and which now consist almost entirely of counter-claims against SCO.
That is, SCO owns massive liability, and its name is absolute mud.
Why would Oracle buy something as utterly fouled up and completely worthless as SCO?
Member since:2005-07-06
SCO will own some intellectual property - hence the reason I clearly stated that Novell needed to get invoklved with this "UNIX Foundation". I don't know why you feel the need to 'pick fights' with anyone who *dares* make a comment on osnews.com.
That is, SCO owns massive liability, and its name is absolute mud.
Why would Oracle buy something as utterly fouled up and completely worthless as SCO?
As clearly stated, they could pick up parts of SCO for a song given the movement into Chapter 7 (liquidation). But like I said, you have a habit of picking fights over issues where there is no contention.
Member since:2007-02-17
SCO has written some code, especially when they were Caldera. That IP was released by Caldera put in to the Linux source code under the GPL v 2.
SCOG has also written some proprietary code ... and you can find it in Unixware. Not in Linux.
As clearly stated, SCO is all liability and negative goodwill, and has zero assets.
Why would anyone buy liabilities, even for a song?
For clarity ... these statements above are just statements of facts. There is no intent to fight people. Facts are facts.
Member since:2006-01-04
They are being switched from Chapter 11 (reorganization)to Chapter 7 (liquidation) because they have continued to lose significant volumes of cash and had no success with any of the plans they have attempted to promote. So it's going to be an auction rather than a sale per se. Oracle may get things cheaper by having a proxy bid on the items they are interested in.
Member since:2007-02-17
Still doesn't answer the question of why anybody would buy something that is all massive liability and no assets.
Losing lawsuits anyone? Millions upon millions of debt owed to IBM, Novell, Autozone and RedHat? How much am I bid, ladies and gentlemen?
Member since:2009-05-07
What I would love to see is for Oracle to purchase SCO for a song then merge any IP and code into what one could dub "UNIX Foundation" to which Novell, OpenSolaris and SCO assets (plus any other UNIX vendor who wishes to through their IP into the basket) to be all pooled together and operate as a non-profit organisation as to avoid any future rangling.
Don't miss this parody with Larry Ellison and Dick Stallman at http://aristippus303.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/oracle-king-of-open-s... with Free Software song by Stallman. LOL!
Edited 2009-05-07 05:54 UTC
Member since:2007-05-28
Does such a thing exist anymore, except for maybe very specialised areas? I don't really see anywhere that Unix sits that Linux cannot.
Not saying you're wrong, just wondering.
Member since:2008-05-26
Member since:2005-07-06
Show us some examples in the Linux source code. It's right there on kernel.org.
He can't and that is the problem with SCO and her apologists. When push comes to shove and they're asked to provide evidence - Darl McBride see's fit to do the dodge dance and dive manoeuvre by dripping any statement with legalese gobbly-goop and setting up straw men which have no relevance to the discussion at hand.
The only thing Darl McBride has proven is that he is a bullshit extraudinaire who would make even Karl Rove blush.
Edited 2009-05-07 03:58 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
Unix source code and methods could have been used to improve scalability in Linux.
Scalability improvements in Linux came largely from SMP code from IBM.
SMP is IBMs code. IBM bought it from Sequent who invented it, so IBM own patents on it, IBM has maintained and improved it, and IBM has released it under the GPL for use in Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with SCOG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing#Operating_sy...
Edited 2009-05-07 04:52 UTC
Member since:2009-05-07
"AIX 4.1 is the first completely new version of the AIX operating system to be announced since the original launch of AIX Version 3 in 1990... Among the new features introduced in this version are: A fully threaded kernel to support Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP)"
"The main issue to transform a UniProcessor (UP) Operating System like the AIX operating system Version 3 into an MP Operating System like AIX Version 4 is to protect the coherency of the data structures managed by the kernel..."Apart from becoming an MP OS, the AIX operating system was also turned from a process-based kernel to a thread-based kernel..."
http://tinyurl.com/d2b9cg
Member since:2007-03-29
Member since:2009-05-07
"Sequent's dual-universe approach is especially bad. You can't write a program
that uses both memset() and mkdir() although such a program runs on the Unix
systems from Sun, Dec, MtXinu, SGI, HP, NeXT, and Encore -- and in either
universe of an Apollo.
"Sequent doesn't even seem to understand. They're so proud that they're finally
moving to SVR3.2 while that the rest of the world is moving to SVR4 -- which,
please note, is the one that merges in most of the BSD features people want.
"I have been passing on these complaints to everyone who asks how we like our
Sequent. Rock-solid hardware, pathetic software."
http://tinyurl.com/cten4t
Linux lacked good scalability in the late 90s ...
Member since:
2009-01-19
I remember using SCO 5 at college back in 1996. The setup was one server and a dozen or so terminals. It was my first exposure to a multi-user system and I thought it was kinda cool. It seemed a real privellage at the time when the teacher logged you on as SU 'Don't look while I enter the password'. LOL 
Member since:
2009-05-07
There are a few good reports on what happened in Denver on Wednesday. I've gathered the most important at http://anonymous-insider.blogspot.com/2009/05/sco-v-novell-appeals-...
Enjoy!
