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 167905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Title has it backwards
by DrillSgt on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 20:57 UTC 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

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"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.)"

What competitor? Linux? Sorry, but until the likes of Adobe start actually porting software to Linux, Linux is no threat to any of the major OS. I am not against Linux at all and use it myself, just saying it is not a threat until proprietary vendors start porting mission critical software over. There is no tru photoshop replacement for business, The Gimp needs a lot of work, and Dreamweaver is considered critical to some places.

Reply Parent Score: -1

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

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

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

Where are the court documents please. I had heard of this as did everyone, but there was never any actual proof that I am aware of. Please direct me to the findings by the court to where Microsoft was fined and or punished after being found guilty of this, as it is most certainly a crime.

Reply Parent Score: 1