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 167862
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Is SCO that bad?
by walterbyrd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:20 UTC 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[3]: Is SCO that bad?
by sbergman27 on Wed 4th Oct 2006 01:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Is SCO that bad?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""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 ;) """



Well, in all fairness, SCO, the *original* SCO was a good company with a good product... except that it really started falling behind, and then they got all focused on UnixWare, and then Linux started eating their market, and they started working on Tarantella and sold their OS division to Caldera. (And I think Tarrantella is doing OK. Anyone know? Didn't Sun buy it or something?)

Caldera was a decent Linux company with a proprietary streak. Whenever they needed something for their distro and it wasn't available as OSS, Caldera's first impusle was to look for something proprietary they could license.

Contrast that with RedHat. It's true that early on, they did resell things like Applixware. But they stopped that a ***long*** time ago. When they needed something for their distro and it wasn't available as OSS, they either started a project, or joined an existing one.

Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera, made some unpopular statments. (Particularly saying that sometimes GPL licensing was better and sometimes BSD licensing was better.) He was a figure that the community loved to hate.

Anyway, during that period, with buying power that no one would have believed except in the dot.com days, when buyfreshclamsonline.com was a *real* domain name, Cadera bought SCO.

One day, Ransom and his crew found themselves ousted, without much public explanation. And the new crew, headed by Dear Darl, took charge.

I sometimes wonder what might have been possible if Old SCO had decided to hang in and ride the wave. Or if Ransom, and his unpopular, but not beyond the pale, strategies had been implemented.

But that was not to be.

Darl got put in charge, to carry out... well... the plans he was put in charge to carry out, and sadly, that is what newer Linux users think that the grand old name of SCO represents.

I despise the current SCO as much as anyone. I take a sort of petty delight when their stock price takes a dive.

But I also recognize that Old SCO kept the Unix on PC's concept alive until Linux was ready... or even existed for that matter.

So, cheers to you SCO, the real one, wherever you are...

Edited 2006-10-04 02:03

Reply Parent Score: 4

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