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 167865
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Title has it backwards
by walterbyrd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:23 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

Scox - or more accurately msft using scox as a proxie - went for the throats of: ibm, novell, redhat, and the entire Linux community.

Novell is mere defending itself against msft's abuse.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Title has it backwards
by lostnerd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 19:42 in reply to "Title has it backwards"
lostnerd Member since:
2005-07-27

I hate to be the guy who defends Microsoft. I for one have no love for them. Well except for their hardware division. Anyway, it was too easy for them to output a small output of cash (relatively) for such a great reward. Trust me they made their money back in stupid business manager fall for the hype and buying those stupid software contracts. Do this and come out clean in the end. Maybe not very ethical but smart.

Matt

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Title has it backwards
by DrillSgt on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 20:57 in reply to "Title has it backwards"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Scox - or more accurately msft using scox as a proxie - went for the throats of: ibm, novell, redhat, and the entire Linux community.

Novell is mere defending itself against msft's abuse."


There has been no proof of this given, just hinted at. Don;t be so quick to claim conspiracy.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Title has it backwards
by sbergman27 on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 21:15 in reply to "RE: Title has it backwards"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""There has been no proof of this given, just hinted at. Don;t be so quick to claim conspiracy."""

Does it really matter if they gathered together in a back room and whispered to each other, or if SCO independently decided to file a frivolous suit against IBM, and MS independently decided to send them $15M in funding to fuel their FUD mongering against what was mutually their greatest potential competitor? (And then referred Baystar to them for even more funding.)

Or do you really believe that MS decided, all of the sudden, thet they needed to send someone $15M for a Unix license, and were so sure that SCO was the proper party to send it to that they just mailed it in without question, so to speak?

The motivations and the end results are the same, whether the cooperation was explicit or implicit.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Title has it backwards
by walterbyrd on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 23:26 in reply to "RE: Title has it backwards"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>There has been no proof of this given, just hinted at. Don;t be so quick to claim conspiracy.<<

There most certainly is proof of msft involvement. Msft arranged about $73 million to fund the scam. Yes, that is proven.

Reply Parent Score: 1