Message ID: 24019
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-05 21:27:00
Subject: Twas brillig and the slithy toabs...

Sorry, couldn't resist. Lewis Carol seems appropriate to this mess.

This board has been an extremely interesting read all day.

My viewpoint: First, I am not a Linux developer or user, though I was a SCO Unix developer at one time. That is Santa Cruz Organization Unix, not the current folks. Currently I am only developing in Windows.

Secondly, I do not have, nor have I ever had, any stock in SCOX. And if I had any, I would sell it in a heartbeat.

Which brings me to my opinion...

I guess what I should point out first, is that SCOX did not write a single line of Unix code. Not one. What they did do is buy the rights to Unix from somebody else. Sort of like Michael Jackson buying the Beetles catalogue.

The difference being, Michael Jackson does not have to sing like the Beetles, write like the Beetles, or play an instrument like the Beetles to support that catalogue. To support Unix, SCOX does (know how to support the code, not sing like the Beetles). Um, does anybody see any indication they can?

Notice, all the licensing they have been doing is to other companies that are developing their own code with System 5 as the basis. Anybody hear any rumors of SCOX developing the next generation of UNIX? Nah, I didn’t think so.

Talk about freeloaders.... Nah, it ain’t Linux users. It is the jerk offs that can’t even modify their own code. Is there anybody at SCOX that can even figure out how to COMPILE the existing code, let alone maintain it?

The litigation:

SCOX’s case against IBM was clearly a contractual dispute. And everybody else ignored it as such. Until SCOX started dragging end users into it (And they did that LONG before Redhat, and SUSe, and Germany, and Australia started getting pissed off).

The LINUX communities requests are simple: Tell us what code infringes, we will fix it. SCOX does not want that, because SCOX does not have a business plan. They cannot support their own software, let alone innovate with it. I’m sorry, as far as I can tell, the business plan is “sue everybody”. There is no Plan ‘B’

The prices SCOX wants to indemnify are ludicrous, to the point where you have to believe they do not want anybody to sign up. If they set them at a reasonable level, they would probably get takers. At $700 per single CPU processor, yeh, right. Who isn’t going to take their chances?

So the question has to be, what is really going on here.

Insider Trading: I am sorry folks, I have examined a lot of companies. I have never seen one where not a single Executive did not buy a single share of stock for TWO FRICKING MONTHS without that sending a STRONG signal to shareholders. Not one share. All buys were from stock options (At around 66 cents a share), and none were executed without selling an equivalent amount of existing shares. Boy, that should make you feel nice and comfy as a share holder. Yeah, strong buy, you bet. Lots of upside. Um...

The worst I have ever rated a company before (When Strong Sell did not express my sentiments) was “Run screaming for the exits!”

This one rates a “You’re joking, right?”

Lastly, about the licensing plan, I wish I had said it first, but I read it on anther board:

“Buying a license for Linux from SCO is like giving in to a naked, unarmed dwarf who is trying to rob you in broad daylight”

Wish I had thought of it first.


Message ID: 24437
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-06 22:05:00
Subject: An Observation or two...

Don’t take this as a threat to SCOX folks, it is not. Just a bemused observation.

Has Darl McBride really considered what it means to piss off a whole planet of hackers at the same time? And piss them off when a large group of them are meeting in a convention center yet? Great business move. I suggest you keep some support staff, and back up your servers regularly. People who know more about how your software works than your company does really hate you at the moment.

The SCOX case is of course worthless, and obviously so. They would have showed the code long before if it was not. They could have gotten their price from IBM and others, and closed the shop with a huge profit.

I guess they got cocky with DrDos, which they bought from Digital Research. Yeah, they extorted some money from MicroSoft with that, but I assume it was more Monopoly issues than IP issues. If it wasn’t, Digital Research would have done it.

So they purchased another antiquated piece of code, and are trying it again. But the Open Source developers community is not MicroSoft, and are not under DOJ constraints. SCOX is SOOO screwed at this point.

One thing that makes me annoyed is the posters that claim Linux users are freeloaders. The real freeloader is SCOX, which wrote not a damned line of code for the system they are claiming IP for.

They did not write it, they did not pay the programmers that did. They are complete opportunists with lawyers. They also do not care squat about the future of Unix, which will continue to exist without them on Supercomputers.

Lastly, Ledite.

Ledite is NOT an officer of SCOX, or a stooge of SCOX, or an employee of SCOX

Ledite is a troll, pure and simple. He posts to boards to get a rise. Enjoy him or hate him. If you hate him, put him on ignore, anything else simply pumps up his ego. He is being noticed. He is being validated. Damned, I would have thought you all would know that type of poster already. Don’t tell him you are putting him on ignore, if that is your decision, just do it. Frankly, I enjoy listening to him rant, sort of the way the Iraqi Information Minster did. Same principle.


PS - Yeah, I promised, Ledite was last, but I can’t help it. If Longs on SCOX are Suckers, does that make them SCOX Suckers?



Message ID: 24564
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-07 10:07:00
Subject: Anybody want to start a pool...

About how low this turkey stock goes today. Winner is the closest to the close price without going under. I vote for $10.

(End of day is either normal market close, or halt of trading, whichever comes first)

Message ID: 24582
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-07 10:20:00
Subject: In all Fairness...

The story hit long before he posted that. It is even listed on the news page for this company.


Message ID: 24881
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-07 15:03:00
Subject: The Linux Position

What the Linux community has its knickers in a knot about is that SCO is trying to extort money from Linux users before showing any proof that there is indeed infringing code.

What is being said to SCO is this: If there is infringing code it will be removed. Immediately.

And the response of “It is too late you already used it” is Bull Dookey.

SCO further added insult to injury by charging the price of a full operating system for indemnity from prosecution. Some favor. You mean there is no value to the code in Linux you do not claim is yours?

How do you feel the people who put all that work into Linux should feel about that?

If IBM really did put improper code into Linux, they are in serious trouble… from the Linux community. There are many checks and balances in place that make that very difficult to happen. And it is not possible that thousands of files are tainted. Period.

From the looks of it though, IBM did NOT insert improper code into Linux, SCO has no proof., and is in serious trouble at the moment. The original lawsuit McBride and company might have pulled a settlement or a buyout from. At this point though, I am in agreement with others, this company is toast. Nobody is going to buy their products, even if it stays legal for them to sell them. And unless SCO does provide some kind of reasonable proof that it even SEEMED like there might be offending code, there will very likely be some kind of criminal action against the officers on stock manipulation charges.

Without belaboring the point, there have been no acquisitions of stock by any officer for a long time, it has all been sales, or exercise of options with a sale of an equal amount of shares. This does not look good at all.


Message ID: 25612
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-08 20:28:00
Subject: Wait just a minute, Ray Noorda?

Isn't that the guy that ran Novell into the dirt? Isn't that the guy who HANDED the office market to MS by screwing up the marketing for Word Perfect when Novell bought it?

Oh, please no. Tell me he is not at the root of this crapola. That would be so rich, it would explain everything. Including the fact that SCO is doomed beyond comprehention.

Message ID: 25663
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-09 12:25:00
Subject: Phillippe Kahn

Is an interesting person, and Borland rose and fell with him, but he never ran Word Pefrect, nor Novell.

I especially loved when he sent chocolate to WP employees... The caffene you know. They cannot do that. It is a drug.

Ray really seems to be the common demoninator here. I spelled it like I meant it to be spelled.

All this stupid crap makes sense, once his name is involked.

(Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice)


Message ID: 25695
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-09 15:30:00
Subject: My Problem with all this...

Why isn't Darl selling?

I mean the entire rest of the insiders are, what's up with Darl? No sales that I can see.

I don't mean this as a reason to say "Buy this stock", um, right... but anybody have any thoughts on this?


Message ID: 25910
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2003-08-10 20:21:00
Subject: Taking a moment to rant....

I just re-read SCOs PR to IBM’s countersuit, and I would like to rant for a bit...

Darl you ignorant misguided slut!

NOBODY warrants anything with software! NOBODY! Not IBM, not Novell, not MS, not Borland, and especially NOT YOU! SCO does not warrant a GOD DAMMED THING with their software. You all carry the same weasel words your lawyers told you to carry “We do not certify this software will meet your needs”

My translation of the rest “We do not guarantee our software from being free of boneheaded programming mistakes. We do not guarantee our software even works. We guarantee nothing except you have paid us a fee”

That is what all your f*ing EULAs state, so don’t give me this crap about warrantees.

They do not exist in the software world. Blow me!

Now let’s get to indemnify: the dictionary definition:

Indemnify: (n) A concept that has NEVER appeared in a EULA. By anybody. Ever. NOBODY has ever done it. NOBODY. So lay off the crap.

No Software company has EVER INDEMNIFIED ANYBODY FROM ANYTHING, EVER. You getting the picture Darl? How about you, DiDio. It has never happened. Ever. Period. Blow me.

Your claim is full of shit, your suit is full of shit, your company is full of shit! Want to disprove it? Take your finger out of your pocket like you are trying to hold me up, and produce the fucking code you dipshit. Do you think you can handle that simple request? Do you think you are up to that Darl?

Nah, I did not think so.

And to the rest of you asswipes that claim Linux users owe money: Produce the code or STFU. Oh wait, you cannot produce it, can you? So STFU unless or until it is proven.

End of rant.

< /RANT>

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "diogenese19348" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2003 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.