Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by anonymous
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Novell appears to be attempting to cut off SCO's lifeline to its cash reserves. By not focusing on the arguments over who owns what in Unix but instead hammering on the far more simple matter of SCO not living up to its business contract, Novell hopes to put a quick end to SCO and its seemingly endless Linux litigation.
Thread beginning with comment 167853
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Is SCO that bad?
by Thomas2005 on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:15 UTC
Thomas2005
Member since:
2005-11-07

I know SCO seems to be sue-happy lately, but are they really that bad? Was SCO always litigious or were they a good company before they "jumped the shark"?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Is SCO that bad?
by walterbyrd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:20 in reply to "Is SCO that bad?"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Do you mean SCO or "The SCO group" because they are two very different companies. The SCO group (scox) calls themselves "SCO" to confuse the issue. Scox also tried to pirate the USL (Unix System Labs) name.

Scox has never been a whorthwhile company.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Is SCO that bad?
by Ford Prefect on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 23:47 in reply to "RE: Is SCO that bad?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

"Scox has never been a whorthwhile company."

That's not true, as this one was formerly known as Caldera. Caldera were really good guys. Ask at Erlangen University about them for example.

Nobody knows what changed them ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Is SCO that bad?
by kaiwai on Wed 4th Oct 2006 08:23 in reply to "RE: Is SCO that bad?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Reply to the article: Law suites have never looked so sexy; I'd love to see SCO go bankrupt; and with that, Novell pick up the pieces and opensource the whole damn UNIX tree under a BSD licence; put it out there, once and for all, under a licence that no one can complain about :-)

Regarding SCO; SCO used to be called "Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) back when it was run by a chubby bearded guy; IIRC, he has since left.

SCO Group formed after Caledera bought SCO, then called themselves Caldera, then that smarmy asshole Ransom Love re-appeared on a Harley claiming that it'll rename itself SCO and 'let the good times goll once more'.

The nutshell is; its a company of lawyers, not businessmen or coders - SCO could have been rescued, they could have bundled their whole SCO product line up under one product name; SCO UNIXWare, and place a price of $1499 up front or $399 per year subscription.

The fact is, they wanted to get their money quick, they made a stupid investment ( they being Canopy Group), and now they want their money back asap, by hell or high water, regardless of whether the evidence is based on lies of stretched interpretations of the relevant contracts.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Is SCO that bad?
by bkavanaugh on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:26 in reply to "Is SCO that bad?"
bkavanaugh Member since:
2005-07-07

This SCO is quite a bit different than the one you may be remembering. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

It more-or-less dates back to the CEO change from Ransom Love to Darl McBride. "SCO" gets confusing, because there was another company called "The Santa Cruz Operation" from which Caldera/SCO Group acquired some UNIX properties. It can all get rather confusing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Is SCO that bad?
by rcsteiner on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 20:00 in reply to "Is SCO that bad?"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Caldera was a good company at one point in time. They were behind some interesting technology including a WABI port for Linux that let Linux run 16-bit Windows programs before Wine was viable.

Reply Parent Score: 5