Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!
newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!
newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed.frii.net!
newsfeed.frii.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!
kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:16:09 +0100
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tiktok.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1065471370 27627 62.49.19.48
(6 Oct 2003 20:16:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:16:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:109
The latest episode in SCO's ongoing battle to prove itself the most
vile, greedy, disgusting company on Earth is enough to shock even the
most ardent Darl McBride fanboyd. Witness their shameful treament of a
loyal reseller reported today at TheRegister
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/33244.html).
Other resellers might reflect on the wisdom of selling the products of
this scumbag outfit that can and will ruin a reseller at a whim...
Begin article:---
SCO has won a court case against its Dutch distributor Dupaco. And
it's got nothing to do with Linux.
SCO, the company now best-known for its crusade against IBM and other
companies over Linux patent issues, recently terminated its 18 year
relationship with Dupaco, preferring a European franchise model.
Dupaco became a distributor of SCO Xenix as early as 1986. CEO and
co-founder Erik Monninkhof told LinuxWorld recently that he attended
every SCO Forum since then, and has turned down offers from other
vendors to sell their UNIX distributions in addition to the SCO line.
Dupaco has built a multi-million dollar revenue stream out of the SCO
offerings.
Naturally, Monninkhof wasn't pleased when SCO informed him that in 30
days the distribution contract would be terminated and that he could
only remain as a zero-margin reseller. Country managers in Europe are
offered exclusive franchise arrangements.
Monninkhof tried to reason with SCO, but didn't succeed. At first SCO
agreed to talk, so Monninkhof flew to SCO's headquarters in Utah, but
learned that there was no-one to meet him and that visitors were not
allowed in the building. Security then escorted Monninkhof off the
premises. He was also given a letter indicating that his company was
no longer welcome at SCO Forum.
A judge in Breda today ruled that the contract Dupaco had with SCO
specified a lawful 30 day notice for termination. Monnikhof had hoped
that the length and nature of the business relationship would be taken
into consideration. Dupaco wanted 200,000 in damages.
Despite the setback, Dupaco is not in trouble: SCO accounts only
around five per cent of total revenue. Elbert Vlastuin will now be
SCO's Regional Manager for the Benelux. ®
End article:---
Nice to see McBride and his mob have run out of other companies to
offend, so they're now canibalising their own (misguided) supporters.
One wonders how long it will be before SCO begin threatening their own
customers with "kneecappings" and "concrete overcoats" if they don't
stump up protection money...
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!nnrp.xmission!zenez.com!gerberb
From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <ger...@zenez.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:12:02 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Lines: 78
Message-ID:
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zenez.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-Trace: terabinaries.xmission.com 1065474725 9001 166.70.62.2
(6 Oct 2003 21:12:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@xmission.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:12:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
In-Reply-To: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:113
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, FyRE wrote:
> The latest episode in SCO's ongoing battle to prove itself the most
> vile, greedy, disgusting company on Earth is enough to shock even the
> most ardent Darl McBride fanboyd. Witness their shameful treament of a
I am definitely not A Darl McBride/SCO managment fan. I am a fan of the
hardworking engineers still working at SCO. I do support them and hope
that the managment words of new features and stuff are not just lipe
service.
> loyal reseller reported today at TheRegister
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/33244.html).
>
> Other resellers might reflect on the wisdom of selling the products of
> this scumbag outfit that can and will ruin a reseller at a whim...
>
> Begin article:---
>
>
> SCO has won a court case against its Dutch distributor Dupaco. And
> it's got nothing to do with Linux.
>
> SCO, the company now best-known for its crusade against IBM and other
> companies over Linux patent issues, recently terminated its 18 year
> relationship with Dupaco, preferring a European franchise model.
>
> Dupaco became a distributor of SCO Xenix as early as 1986. CEO and
> co-founder Erik Monninkhof told LinuxWorld recently that he attended
> every SCO Forum since then, and has turned down offers from other
> vendors to sell their UNIX distributions in addition to the SCO line.
> Dupaco has built a multi-million dollar revenue stream out of the SCO
> offerings.
>
> Naturally, Monninkhof wasn=92t pleased when SCO informed him that in 30
> days the distribution contract would be terminated and that he could
> only remain as a zero-margin reseller. Country managers in Europe are
> offered exclusive franchise arrangements.
>
> Monninkhof tried to reason with SCO, but didn=92t succeed. At first SCO
> agreed to talk, so Monninkhof flew to SCO's headquarters in Utah, but
> learned that there was no-one to meet him and that visitors were not
> allowed in the building. Security then escorted Monninkhof off the
> premises. He was also given a letter indicating that his company was
> no longer welcome at SCO Forum.
>
> A judge in Breda today ruled that the contract Dupaco had with SCO
> specified a lawful 30 day notice for termination. Monnikhof had hoped
> that the length and nature of the business relationship would be taken
> into consideration. Dupaco wanted =80200,000 in damages.
>
> Despite the setback, Dupaco is not in trouble: SCO accounts only
> around five per cent of total revenue. Elbert Vlastuin will now be
> SCO=92s Regional Manager for the Benelux. =AE
>
>
> End article:---
>
> Nice to see McBride and his mob have run out of other companies to
> offend, so they're now canibalising their own (misguided) supporters.
> One wonders how long it will be before SCO begin threatening their own
> customers with "kneecappings" and "concrete overcoats" if they don't
> stump up protection money...
I was really hoping SCO would loose this one. I hate the way they treated
this company. I have been watching it closely and so have my clients. I
was really hoping that they would prevail against SCO on this.
Just goes to show we do not know how the lawyers and judges are going to
rule on this issue. Which was the point I was trying to make. I hope
that this all gets cleared up soon, but probably will not.
--
Boyd Gerber <ger...@zenez.com>
ZENEZ=091042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!
pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
Lines: 25
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:09:04 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1065503344 24.69.255.232 (Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:09:04 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:09:04 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:131
Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, FyRE wrote:
> Just goes to show we do not know how the lawyers and judges are
> going to rule on this issue.
You are a real piece of work Boyd-Brain.
I know exactly how the SCO vs The World is going to work just like I knew
how the SCO contract dispute was going to turn out - the distributer
contract clearly stated 30 days notice.
You use your ignorance like a shield to spare you from having to think.
> Which was the point I was trying to make. I hope that
> this all gets cleared up soon, but probably will not.
SCO is going to crash and burn - it's case against IBM is totally without
merit. It's accusations against the Linux community is totally without
merit.
Your continued flacid SCO support is just prolonging the inevitable for your
clients.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: br...@aljex.com (Brian K. White)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: 7 Oct 2003 10:55:53 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.37.188.170
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1065549354 23838 127.0.0.1
(7 Oct 2003 17:55:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:55:54 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:147
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote in message news:
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>...
> Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, FyRE wrote:
> > Just goes to show we do not know how the lawyers and judges are
> > going to rule on this issue.
>
> You are a real piece of work Boyd-Brain.
>
> I know exactly how the SCO vs The World is going to work just like I knew
> how the SCO contract dispute was going to turn out - the distributer
> contract clearly stated 30 days notice.
>
> You use your ignorance like a shield to spare you from having to think.
>
> > Which was the point I was trying to make. I hope that
> > this all gets cleared up soon, but probably will not.
>
> SCO is going to crash and burn - it's case against IBM is totally without
> merit. It's accusations against the Linux community is totally without
> merit.
>
> Your continued flacid SCO support is just prolonging the inevitable for your
> clients.
>
> Brian
Ugh.
I wish you would more fully express your
ignorance/attitude/youth/etc... by also being one of those people that
hides behind an anonymous handle.
I dislike seeing what looks like my name on posts of such flatulous
texture.
What kind of a person gets his kicks hanging out in a forum on a given
topic, only to express derision for that topic? Aren't there plenty of
l33t h@x0r groups where bashing sco or bashing anything but linux is
actually welcome and appreciated? What, you don't have the stones to
think up good enough digs to run in that crowd?
Surely you cannot think you are telling anyone here anything they
don't already know? Which leaves only the tiresome motives of the
typical troll as the only likely explanation for why you are here. Who
do you imagine that hangs in this group that doesn't know the exact
nature of a troll and the exact worth of a troll's opinion?
I'm actually not telling you to go away. I'm challenging you to
explain yourself and justify your existence. I say you are pointless.
Do you feel pointless? Do you accept being perceived as pointless? Do
you actually think you are adding to the world? Is that even a value
you aspire to? I can work up at least some respect for someone who
honestly thinks they are doing something productive no matter how
misguided and backwards their actual actions are.
Brian K. White -- br...@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!
newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!
pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
Lines: 91
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:46:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1065602796 24.69.255.232 (Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:46:36 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:46:36 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:178
Brian K. White wrote:
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote...
>> Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
>> > Just goes to show we do not know how the lawyers and judges
>> > are going to rule on this issue.
>> You are a real piece of work Boyd-Brain.
>> I know exactly how the SCO vs The World is going to work just like
>> I knew how the SCO contract dispute was going to turn out - the
>> distributer contract clearly stated 30 days notice.
> Ugh.
> I wish you would more fully express your ignorance/attitude/youth/etc
> ... by also being one of those people that hides behind an anonymous
> handle.
I am not ignorant, I DO have some attitude - it comes from 30 years
experience in international marketing of technology products, my youth is in
the too distant past and as for "etc", I am sure you will think of
something to add.
> I dislike seeing what looks like my name on posts of such flatulous
> texture.
Ouch! That hurt.
> What kind of a person gets his kicks hanging out in a forum on a
> given topic, only to express derision for that topic?
How about a person that is enraged by the blatant smearing of an amazing
technological business model by a paid sycophant with aspirations of
damaging headlines?
You appear to not like what I have to say - that is too bad!
> Aren't there plenty of l33t h@x0r groups where bashing sco or
> bashing anything but linux is actually welcome and appreciated?
Ah.. Playing the Linux hacker card a little early aren't you?
Since I work and support Linux I must be some renegade DDoSing, code
stealing, virus writing, living in my momn's basement hacker degenerate.
Let me tell you something; there is nothing that SCO has in the way of code
that anyone in the Open Source community would want! It's dead - it just
hasn't fallen over yet.
> What, you don't have the stones to think up good enough digs
> to run in that crowd?
What?
> Surely you cannot think you are telling anyone here anything they
> don't already know? Which leaves only the tiresome motives of the
> typical troll as the only likely explanation for why you are here.
Am I interrupting any legitimate SCO newsgroup threads? Am I posting on
threads where people are looking for help?
No!
But guess what, I reserve the right to post here on ANY subject that
discusses the legitimacy of SCO and their lying directors.
> Who do you imagine that hangs in this group that doesn't know the
> exact nature of a troll and the exact worth of a troll's opinion?
What is your point?
> I'm actually not telling you to go away. I'm challenging you to
> explain yourself and justify your existence.
You first.
> I say you are pointless. Do you feel pointless? Do you accept being
> perceived as pointless? Do you actually think you are adding to the
> world? Is that even a value you aspire to? I can work up at least
> some respect for someone who honestly thinks they are doing
> something productive no matter how misguided and backwards their
> actual actions are.
Wow, I have to guess you have some real self-worth issues there Brian W. - I
hope you get some help with that.
Best regards,
Brian
Linux Registered User #61537
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!
supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Tony Earnshaw <mam...@billy.demon.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:53:00 +0200
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, nb, nn, nl, is
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
In-Reply-To: <M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 24
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:307
brian wrote:
>>>You are a real piece of work Boyd-Brain.
Boyd Linn helps others. He's helped me, without my even asking. For
free. Who do you help? Many people on this list have helped me to learn
Unix. What have you to offer other people?
> I am not ignorant, I DO have some attitude - it comes from 30 years
> experience in international marketing of technology products, my youth is in
> the too distant past and as for "etc", I am sure you will think of
> something to add.
Your 30 years' experience in "international marketing" have made you so
ashamed, that you do not even dare to give your name. Suchlike does not
induce respect.
Hear me, fyre? Small letter for both of you, from now on. No respect for
either, on my part. You both attack people I've known and respected for
years, whilst expressing your own ignorance.
--Tonni
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!
newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news3.optonline.net!
pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
Lines: 51
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:30:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1065943835 24.69.255.232 (Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:30:35 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:30:35 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:313
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> brian wrote:
>>>>You are a real piece of work Boyd-Brain.
> Boyd Linn helps others. He's helped me, without my even asking.
> For free. Who do you help? Many people on this list have helped
> me to learn Unix. What have you to offer other people?
I have never posted to this newsgroup until SCO started attacking The Open
Source community and Linux.
You see, I am not very happy about that and I feel obliged to share my
displeasure with my fellow IT professionals - especially those
professionals that continue to support the outfit that is, by proxy,
attacking me.
I am not sorry your feelings are hurt - Too Fucking Bad!
>> I am not ignorant, I DO have some attitude - it comes from 30 years
>> experience in international marketing of technology products, my
>> youth is in the too distant past and as for "etc", I am sure you
>> will think of something to add.
> Your 30 years' experience in "international marketing" have made you
> so ashamed, that you do not even dare to give your name. Suchlike
> does not induce respect.
I am not looking for your respect. If you are unhappy, you should share with
your SCO representive. You should explain that a lot of people are pissed
off over this unfounded attack on Linux!
If you want to talk about respect, you should tell your SCO rep that
everything and most everybody associated with SCO is held in total
contempt.
SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle on
the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a daily
basis in order to further this swindle. These lies are hurting many
innocent hard working dedicated people and in effect aiding the Microsoft
machine - funny that the majority of the lawsuit funding originates from
Microsoft, no?
Now take your whinny opinion and righteous indignation and stick it up the
ass of the closest SCO representative you can find.
Have I made my point perfectly clear?
Thank you.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 27
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1065956096 14541 192.74.137.185 (12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX) (IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:314
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle on
>the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a daily
>basis in order to further this swindle.
You don't know that.
You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims. Does that not
matter to you at all? If IBM really did release copyright protected
code, don't they have a right to compensation?
OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
were. Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally
useless. But even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may
very well be that they have a solid case.
They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!
residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 112
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:48:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1065984516 24.69.255.232 (Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:48:36 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:48:36 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:320
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.
> You don't know that.
I most certainly do Know That!
> You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims.
Their claims from the very beginning were a smokescreen of lies and deceit
with the sole intention of sowing FUD in the IT community and swindling
Linux corporate users.
> Does that not matter to you at all? If IBM really did release
> copyright protected code, don't they have a right to compensation?
Give me a break Tony, if there is any SCO copyrighted material in Linux,
Show Me The Code!
Identify the lines of proprietary code in the Linux kernel source - you
don't even have to show the corresponding SCO code.
The reason they don't is because there is no SCO proprietary code in the
Linux kernel!
It is all a lie!
> OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
> on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
> were.
Fumbled Badly!!! You have to be kidding, Tony?
The SCO Group (of scumbags) has done everything in their power to spread
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - *EVERYTHING* in their power!
Now they are back-peddaling fast to avoid discovery of any of their proofs
with both RedHat and IBM - SCO is the one filing for delays!
What does that say to you Tony?
> Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally useless. But
> even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
Or course it does. These people are professional administrators with a large
and experienced legal team on their payroll.
The SCO Group (of scumbags) are a pack of liars!
Absolutely No Grey Area There at all.
> Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
> not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may very
> well be that they have a solid case.
Bullshit!
You are living in a dream world Tony - SCO has No Case!
There is no theft of code and the analogy that The SCO Group (of scumbags)
uses concerning the theft of a car and it's return doesn't hold water.
When someone steals your car, you are deprived of the property AND you can
no longer drive around in that car. When someone includes some of your code
in their product, they have not physically taken control of the code, it is
still yours, *AND* you are not prevented for using and selling the code
yourself.
Do you *NOT* see the difference?
> They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
> long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
> get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.
SCO and Canopy won't get a penny from IBM - not one red cent - zero.
IBM will end up owning SCO and will likely put all it's overpriced crap into
EOL - perhaps open source the libraries for a Linux compatibility layer.
If you want some idea about the value of the SCO channel, all you have to do
is listen to the numbers that have shown up for the road show - What A
Joke!
Before you start spinning me a story about all the righteous engineers that
are employed by The SCO Group (of scumbags) and what swell guys they are,
let me remind you that SCO is attempting to highjack the Open Source
community with it's thousands of dedicated coders that often work for
nothing, donating their contributions for the good of their community.
If the poor misunderstood engineers at SCO had any scruples, they would
leave in protest! They are staying for their paychecks Tony - that as far
as I am concerned makes them complicit!
The SCO Group are a pack of lying bastards spreading their filth over the
entire Linux/Unix community.
How will the Linux Open Source community be repaid for the damage to our
reputation and loss of credibility in the marketplace? Are you going to
pony up a few bucks? Is Bela? I don't think so!
After all the damage is done and The SCO Group is gone, who will repay us
for our losses?
Are there any SCO engineers that care to dispute my charges of lying and
deceit? I didn't think so! That's what I mean when I say complicit! Don't
ever come sucking around looking for a job here!
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!
newsp.newsguy.com!enews1
From: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:36:32 -0700
Organization: Committee to Maintain an Independent Xenix
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
Reply-To: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-880.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:325
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 +0000 (UTC), to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>If IBM really did release copyright protected
>code, don't they have a right to compensation?
Nope. SCO has a right to sue for DAMAGE if the code leak contributed
to a loss of revenue. It will be necessary for SCO to prove such
damage, which methinks is going to be difficult. If damage could not
be proven, the best SCO can do is request an injunction to prevent
furthur use of the proprietary code and removal of the offending code.
In the unlikely event that SCO can prove damage, they are not entitled
to anything after they refused to release the offending code, as this
non-release makes SCO contributory to any alleged damage. No way is
the court going to award SCO anything if SCO also is allowing the
alleged damage to continue. One possible outcome is that the court
agrees that there was some use of proprietary code by IBM, but that
SCO is not entitled to any monetary awards.
>OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
>on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
>were. Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally
>useless. But even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
>Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
>not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may
>very well be that they have a solid case.
In the real world of high dollar litigation, nobody cares who's right,
wrong, clueless, or confused. Liars and truth stretching is epidemic.
Judgements are often made on the basis of political expediency,
partisan politix, and proximity to the next election or position
advancement window. The Linux mob could be 150% correct in all its
allegations of SCO's failure to prove its case, but if politix enters
the case, it's a waste of time. (I call to your attention the Justice
Dept vs Microsoft fiasco).
In this case, methinks SCO has uncovered a weakness in the copyright
laws. IBM cannot afford to have any upstart sue them for $3 billion
for the accidental or intentional recycling of code. IBM has far too
much invested in its patents and software to risk having every
individual or company that suspects IBM has either accidentally or
intentionally borrowed their code, suddenly sue IBM. If SCO were even
partly successful in their suit, that's the likely outcome.
In my never humble opinion and guesswork, IBM is likely to agree that
SCO may have a point, but that accidental plagerism of code is an
industry wide problem, especially when much of the code is of dubious
origin and ownership. It's likely that the court will arbirarily rule
that 5% plagerism is acceptable and not constitute sufficient
simularity to justify awards of damages.
As always, money is paramount. IBM has the most to lose if SCO sets a
precident, even if SCO only partially prevails in court. Linux is of
no financial consequence because frankly, there's no money in it. SCO
needs to continue to exist as a competitor to Microsoft or there is a
real risk that Microsoft might also be considered a monopoly in the
server market.
>They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
>long term damage to Linux AND Unix.
Are there going to be any winners in this mess? I certainly don't see
any. Perhaps copyright law, the GPL, and perhaps software patents
might be clarified. Perhaps ownership of the Unix code base might
also be clarified. But winners, as in financial winners, none that I
can see.
>Any short term gains they could
>get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.
Gains? Even if SCO collects something from IBM to just go away, you
can be sure the present mob of litigators running the Utah end of the
puzzle will either divide up the pie and run, or sue each other into
impoverishment. Judging by the mentality and recent actions, I
suggest the latter.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!
attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joe@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
Reply-To: joedunning12...@hotmail.com
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.4 (Linux)
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.235.17.88
X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.net
X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1066003244 12.235.17.88 (Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:44 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:44 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:44 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:328
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:36:32 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>In this case, methinks SCO has uncovered a weakness in the copyright
>laws.
Since SCO has not filed any lawsuits alleging copyright infringement, I
rather doubt this.
On the other hand, SCO is accused in IBM counter-suit of copyright
infringement.
> IBM cannot afford to have any upstart sue them for $3 billion
>for the accidental or intentional recycling of code. IBM has far too
>
Exactly, this is why your next prediction is very unlikely to happen...
>In my never humble opinion and guesswork, IBM is likely to agree that
>SCO may have a point,
IMHO, IBM will agree to nothing, since to do otherwise would likely
encourage other similar suits against them.
> SCO needs to continue to exist as a competitor to Microsoft or there is a
> real risk that Microsoft might also be considered a monopoly in the
> server market.
You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the server market?
Even so, perhpas it would be good for Microsoft to be SEEN as a monopoly,
not just act like one and get away with it.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:14:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 15
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bmcqov$ksq$1@pcls4.std.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
<MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066004063 21402 192.74.137.185
(13 Oct 2003 00:14:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:14:23 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare")
(UNIX) (IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:329
Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the server market?
They are. Not much of a competitor, but a competitor just the same.
Of course, I'm a competitor to IBM's Global Services Division too.
:-)
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 193
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066005733 21402 192.74.137.185
(13 Oct 2003 00:42:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:330
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.
>> You don't know that.
>I most certainly do Know That!
No. It's your OPINION.
As an opinion, it isn't outrageous or unreasonable. But it isn't
fact, and isn't anything you can prove at this moment anyway.
>
>> You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims.
>Their claims from the very beginning were a smokescreen of lies and deceit
>with the sole intention of sowing FUD in the IT community and swindling
>Linux corporate users.
Opinion.
>> Does that not matter to you at all? If IBM really did release
>> copyright protected code, don't they have a right to compensation?
>Give me a break Tony, if there is any SCO copyrighted material in Linux,
>Show Me The Code!
Um, I don't have the code. If there is anything to show, that's
up to SCO. Only they know that - or think they know it.
>Identify the lines of proprietary code in the Linux kernel source - you
>don't even have to show the corresponding SCO code.
SCO's lawyers apparently have decided that's the same thing. Did you
read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031010223050711 ?
>The reason they don't is because there is no SCO proprietary code in the
>Linux kernel!
Opinion.
>It is all a lie!
>> OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
>> on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
>> were.
>Fumbled Badly!!! You have to be kidding, Tony?
No, I'm not kidding. If (IF) they really do have anything, they were
idiots to show those non-examples and crow about them. All that
did was further damage their already lousy reputation. Whoever
engineered that debacle should be fired.
>The SCO Group (of scumbags) has done everything in their power to spread
>Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - *EVERYTHING* in their power!
>Now they are back-peddaling fast to avoid discovery of any of their proofs
>with both RedHat and IBM - SCO is the one filing for delays!
>What does that say to you Tony?
It says the lawyers are doing their thing. As usual. I joke with
my customers that I don't own a watch because I bill by the hour,
but lawyers carry multiple watches and bill for each and every one
of them :-)
>> Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally useless. But
>> even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
>Or course it does. These people are professional administrators with a large
>and experienced legal team on their payroll.
>The SCO Group (of scumbags) are a pack of liars!
>Absolutely No Grey Area There at all.
Opinion.
>> Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
>> not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may very
>> well be that they have a solid case.
>Bullshit!
No. Opinion. Mine, this time. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Not that it matters: http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B584.html
>You are living in a dream world Tony - SCO has No Case!
I didn't say that they do. I said it's possible that they
do, and also possible that they are a bunch of fools. Or
something in between. I certainly don't know. If you put
a gun to my head and said I had to guess right or die, I'd
guess that they are going to lose. But I'd still worry about
getting shot at the end of it all.
>There is no theft of code and the analogy that The SCO Group (of scumbags)
>uses concerning the theft of a car and it's return doesn't hold water.
>When someone steals your car, you are deprived of the property AND you can
>no longer drive around in that car. When someone includes some of your code
>in their product, they have not physically taken control of the code, it is
>still yours, *AND* you are not prevented for using and selling the code
>yourself.
>Do you *NOT* see the difference?
The difference is intellectual property. I personally hold that
software should NOT be protected by copyrights or patents, but
I'm not in charge, so it is. If you steal it, you face the
laws. I can disagree all I like, but that changes nothing,
at least right now it doesn't.
>> They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
>> long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
>> get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.
>SCO and Canopy won't get a penny from IBM - not one red cent - zero.
>IBM will end up owning SCO and will likely put all it's overpriced crap into
>EOL - perhaps open source the libraries for a Linux compatibility layer.
Opinion.
>If you want some idea about the value of the SCO channel, all you have to do
>is listen to the numbers that have shown up for the road show - What A
>Joke!
I went to the Road Show. I also used to attend their Quarterly Business
Briefings. Attendance at the RS wasn't markedly different than the
QBB's were in recent years. http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B575.html
>Before you start spinning me a story about all the righteous engineers that
>are employed by The SCO Group (of scumbags) and what swell guys they are,
What would that have to do with this?
>let me remind you that SCO is attempting to highjack the Open Source
>community with it's thousands of dedicated coders that often work for
>nothing, donating their contributions for the good of their community.
Opinion.
>If the poor misunderstood engineers at SCO had any scruples, they would
>leave in protest! They are staying for their paychecks Tony - that as far
>as I am concerned makes them complicit!
Opinion.
>The SCO Group are a pack of lying bastards spreading their filth over the
>entire Linux/Unix community.
Opinion.
>How will the Linux Open Source community be repaid for the damage to our
>reputation and loss of credibility in the marketplace? Are you going to
>pony up a few bucks? Is Bela? I don't think so!
I don't know why I or Bela should be expected to do so. Do you?
>After all the damage is done and The SCO Group is gone, who will repay us
>for our losses?
Who's going to pay me for my losses?
Business is tough all over. When the railroads came in, the steam boat
operators lost money. When the PC came out, Dec and Wang started to
die. Shit happens.
Fact is, if SCO hadn't done this, someone else would. SCO has long
standing gripes against IBM for cutting them off at the knees with
Project Monterey. Maybe that's why they are so adamant about this,
I don't know.
Look, I understand your anger. A lot of us are angry over this.
I can't see any good coming of it. But facts are facts and
opinions are opinions. Opinions are all you and I have
right now. The difference is that I know I have only opinions,
and you foolishly insist that you have facts.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!
news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!
pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no> <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 116
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:03:21 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066032201 24.69.255.232 (Mon, 13 Oct 2003 02:03:21 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 02:03:21 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:332
<to...@aplawrence.com> wrote...
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
> >to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> >> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
> >>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
> >>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
> >>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.
> >> You don't know that.
> >I most certainly do Know That!
> No. It's your OPINION.
Lets review:
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group announce that Their Unix
Code has been improperly copied into the Linux Kernel 2.4 series.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to identify what code
they claim as theirs without individuals signing a rights-sucking NDA.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group show the alledged offending
code to people who sign the NDA but said code is miniscule in volume, is
disguised to prevent identification AND is impossible to verify - no
provenance! Just what was the point of the NDA if they show NOTHING?
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's alledged offending code is
revealed at the annual SCO Forum and is immediately identified as not
proprietary at all and in one case is not even owned by the The Scum Sucking
Lying Thieves at The SCO Group.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group now claim over a million
lines of Linux 2.4 kernel actually belongs to them and yet once again they
refuse to identify a single line.
SGI has access to the entire codebase of The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at
The SCO Group Unix and does an extensive search and finds a couple trivial
passages which they state has been BSDed and as such not a violation of any
proprietary rights but just to be safe they remove the code.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's proof
of violation of proprietary rights.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group maintain a constant stream
of PR events filled with accusations, threats, outright lies concerning
proprietary code, the Linux community, The General Public License and even
the law.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are now handing out t-shirts
asking the question "is unix in your linux?"
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's road show is showing
minute attendance by pissed off resellers and yet they still refuse to
reveal a single line of code that they have absolute exclusive ownership of
that is included in Linux kernel 2.4.xx.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have threatened repeatedly
to send invoices to Linux users but it has never happened - as a matter of
fact, every attempt to pay for and secure an SCO Linux license has failed.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group claim their new SCOsource
initiative has seen them through two quarters of profitability BUT their
only clients are Linux's most bitter rivals - Microsoft and SUN.
The claimed reason The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to
reveal the offending code in not founded in law - as a matter of actual
fact, the law is very clear about identifying each violation in order to
mitigate damages.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have attacked the Open
Source community, the Linux community, the General Public License,
commercial Linux users, Linus Torvalds, all the talented coders that have
worked so hard developing & maintaining the open source codebase and
everything that is great about free software and yet continues to distribute
the Linux 2.4 kernel, continues to distribute GNU/Open Source products with
their proprietary Unix and are even bragging about the upcoming release of
Samba 3.0.
Despite all the rhetoric, accusations, announcements and threats, The Scum
Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have yet to file a single suit
against any Linux user, distributor or contributor for a violation of
copyright.
Now I have a hard question for you: Just how stupid are you, Anthony? Are
you really so stupid that you can't connect the dots to some logical
conclusion?
You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that. I have
behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source community
INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that have done an extensive
analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence Lessig, noted author and law
professor at Stanford University and hundreds of corporate, government and
IT leaders have all voiced support for our cause.
Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In The Know"
engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code? A thousand lines of
code? Any identifiable passage of code? Have you?
Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why don't you
outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be otherwise.
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are nothing but Scum Sucking
Lying Thieves.
Now, either Put up or Shut up! No mealy mouthed cop-outs about how The Scum
Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group could have done it different or how
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are misunderstood copyright
owners looking for payment from a community that is founded on free
contribution and distribution of code.
8^)
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.tele.dk!
not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:16:21 +0200
From: Kim Petersen <k...@kyborg.dk>
Organization: Kyborg.dk
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
X-Accept-Language: da, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no> <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
<d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no>
In-Reply-To: <d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 229
Message-ID: <3f8a9795$0$29357$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.198.126.161
X-Trace: 1066047381 dread15.news.tele.dk 29357 80.198.126.161:39218
X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:333
Brian wrote:
> <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote...
>
>>Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>
>>>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>>>>>swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>>>>>are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.
>
>
>>>>You don't know that.
>
>
>>>I most certainly do Know That!
>
>
>>No. It's your OPINION.
>
>
I've tried to ignore your SSLT bullshit throughout this, it won't get
you a lot of readers i guess - since even those that might sympathise
with your arguments/opinions jump off at this.... (not a very smart way
to write a usenet article).
> Lets review:
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group announce that Their Unix
> Code has been improperly copied into the Linux Kernel 2.4 series.
yep
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to identify what code
> they claim as theirs without individuals signing a rights-sucking NDA.
yep - although they have quite accurately stated where at least a *very*
large portion of the code they are sueing over is. [in my opinion
something that they aren't going to win - but thats *my* opinion] -
namely in the NUMA etc. code that IBM contributed to Linux - now this
code is copyrighted by IBM - but SCO is claiming that this (while IBM
retains the rights) is a breach of *contract* between the two parties.
This is what the SCO vs. IBM case is about - _not_ copyright.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group show the alledged offending
> code to people who sign the NDA but said code is miniscule in volume, is
> disguised to prevent identification AND is impossible to verify - no
> provenance! Just what was the point of the NDA if they show NOTHING?
Actually i think a Linux Journal man, has seen some of the code under
the NDA - and has stated that the code is definitly in Linux and that
part probably wasn't BSD - but he can't tell much except that the code
would have very little impact if in fact it needed to be removed.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's alledged offending code is
> revealed at the annual SCO Forum and is immediately identified as not
> proprietary at all and in one case is not even owned by the The Scum Sucking
> Lying Thieves at The SCO Group.
None of the two codeexamples were actually SCO's - one is in the public
domain - first time published in the 70's - and second example is pure BSD.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group now claim over a million
> lines of Linux 2.4 kernel actually belongs to them and yet once again they
> refuse to identify a single line.
And this actually adds up - *if* the claim SCO has brought against the
IBM contract is correct - then the code that is tainted with these
contributions come to around this number (this is documented several
places on the various groups (eg. Groklaw)). Now this doesn't mean that
if SCO wins (and again i seriously doubt it) we'll have to dig away all
of it - because most of it is macro's and constants used from the
contributions.
>
> SGI has access to the entire codebase of The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at
> The SCO Group Unix and does an extensive search and finds a couple trivial
> passages which they state has been BSDed and as such not a violation of any
> proprietary rights but just to be safe they remove the code.
And again this is not what this case is about. It *is* a contract case -
*not* a copyright one. [what SCO is actually sueing IBM over is not the
same as the FUD they are spreading via the media].
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
> delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's proof
> of violation of proprietary rights.
This is a regular tactics, nothing new under the sun here - they will
eventually have to deliver the documents - but in the meantime, they are
using their right to stall.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group maintain a constant stream
> of PR events filled with accusations, threats, outright lies concerning
> proprietary code, the Linux community, The General Public License and even
> the law.
Here i'm 100% in agreement (except for the SSLT part).
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are now handing out t-shirts
> asking the question "is unix in your linux?"
It's according to the contract claim still a question.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's road show is showing
> minute attendance by pissed off resellers and yet they still refuse to
> reveal a single line of code that they have absolute exclusive ownership of
> that is included in Linux kernel 2.4.xx.
See above - your repeating yourself.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have threatened repeatedly
> to send invoices to Linux users but it has never happened - as a matter of
> fact, every attempt to pay for and secure an SCO Linux license has failed.
Yes, and they will fail miserably if they ever do this.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group claim their new SCOsource
> initiative has seen them through two quarters of profitability BUT their
> only clients are Linux's most bitter rivals - Microsoft and SUN.
>
Its not a lie - its a fact. Now it may not be good business because
revenue is dropping off in the foreseeable future - but its still correct.
> The claimed reason The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to
> reveal the offending code in not founded in law - as a matter of actual
> fact, the law is very clear about identifying each violation in order to
> mitigate damages.
Actually its very much their right - we can discuss if they can have
retributionary licencing based on something they wouldn't reveal [my
opinion - not very likely *even* within the state of the american
justice system]. We can also discuss if they actually still will hold
the rights to the parts *if* the case is won - if they don't reveal the
code now. But your statement is false/misguiding.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have attacked the Open
> Source community, the Linux community, the General Public License,
> commercial Linux users, Linus Torvalds, all the talented coders that have
> worked so hard developing & maintaining the open source codebase and
> everything that is great about free software and yet continues to distribute
> the Linux 2.4 kernel, continues to distribute GNU/Open Source products with
> their proprietary Unix and are even bragging about the upcoming release of
> Samba 3.0.
>
Yes, its hippocritical - but then nothing in the GPL states that your
morals have to be high to use opensource software.
> Despite all the rhetoric, accusations, announcements and threats, The Scum
> Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have yet to file a single suit
> against any Linux user, distributor or contributor for a violation of
> copyright.
>
Learn and distinguish - FUD vs. actual Claim and reverse.
> Now I have a hard question for you: Just how stupid are you, Anthony? Are
> you really so stupid that you can't connect the dots to some logical
> conclusion?
Actually i'd state the same question to you - while you seem to have
read up on the case - you don't seem to have your facts straight - good
advice - read Groklaw - think - read again - think - think hard.
>
> You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that. I have
> behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source community
> INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that have done an extensive
> analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence Lessig, noted author and law
> professor at Stanford University and hundreds of corporate, government and
> IT leaders have all voiced support for our cause.
Linus (not Linux) has stated very little about this case - the one thing
that he has stated is that he *believes* that SCO are "full of it".
I don't have the time and energy just for this text to read up on
Lawrence Lessigs opinion - but i'll venture the guess that 1) he
believes that SCO will lose 2) that the FUD SCO is spreading about the
GPL is highly unlikely 3) that the statement that SCO has made about
copyright meaning exactly ONE copy is false.
Support is not law. Opinions won't win a lawsuit. Even lawprofessors can
be wrong.
>
> Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In The Know"
> engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code? A thousand lines of
> code? Any identifiable passage of code? Have you?
read above
>
> Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why don't you
> outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be otherwise.
>
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are nothing but Scum Sucking
> Lying Thieves.
Faulty logic wont prove statements.
>
> Now, either Put up or Shut up! No mealy mouthed cop-outs about how The Scum
> Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group could have done it different or how
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are misunderstood copyright
> owners looking for payment from a community that is founded on free
> contribution and distribution of code.
>
> 8^)
>
> Brian
>
--
Med Venlig Hilsen / Regards
Kim Petersen - Kyborg A/S (Udvikling)
IT - Innovationshuset
Havneparken 2
7100 Vejle
Tlf. +4576408183 || Fax. +4576408188
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:24:42 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 82
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bme5i9$m2u$1@pcls4.std.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no> <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
<d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066047882 22622 192.74.137.185
(13 Oct 2003 12:24:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:24:42 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:334
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that. I have
A theory is an opinion, boopy.
>behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source community
>INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that have done an extensive
>analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence Lessig, noted author and law
>professor at Stanford University and hundreds of corporate, government and
>IT leaders have all voiced support for our cause.
And other legal experts have said otherwise. That's the nice thing
about experts; you can almost always get one for your side.
>Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In The Know"
>engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code? A thousand lines of
>code? Any identifiable passage of code? Have you?
Basic logic: If you see Joe at point x and time y, he was there. If you
don't, he might still have been hiding behind a tree. SCO is hiding
whatever evidence, real or not, they think they have. You can't
see it, I can't see it, and anybody who can isn't allowed to say
"boo" about it.
>Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why don't you
>outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be otherwise.
>The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are nothing but Scum Sucking
>Lying Thieves.
>Now, either Put up or Shut up! No mealy mouthed cop-outs about how The Scum
>Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group could have done it different or how
>The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are misunderstood copyright
>owners looking for payment from a community that is founded on free
>contribution and distribution of code.
Mealy mouthed cop-outs? My, aren't we the angry little man.
Just what am I supposed to "put up"? If it's mealy mouthed to say that
I don't have the knowledge to know what reality is here, then I guess
I'll have to continue to piss you off by saying that I don't. I've said
a dozen times or more that I agree it all looks bad, but until the cards
are face up on the table, who the hell knows? And, probably more
importantly, the confused lineage of all this stuff means that a judge
and jury are going to have a hell of a time sorting it out, and that
can lead to decisions that we may not like at all: in other words,
SCO could still win with crap for evidence.
I am of the opinion that people at SCO honestly believe they have
been ripped off and that they deserve damages. I suspect they
are probably wrong, I know they are morally wrong from my viewpoint,
but I sure as hell don't know what evidence they have or don't have.
I'll say it again: if I had to choose under pain of death, I'd
bet they lose this. But that's just a guess, just an opinion.
It is EXTREMELY unlikely that they are making this all up and lying
outright. Lying about something like this to manipulate stock prices
would not go down well with the SEC. People go to jail for such things.
You are much too angry.. :-)
There's a much larger picture here that has to do with people
who believe that they can own ideas and those who don't. I fall
into the second category, SCO and IBM are definitely in the
first camp. It's funny to see IBM embracing open source, but
the reality is that their reasons aren't at all what they seem.
Sooner or later, somebody was going to attack open source in this
way, accusing it of stealing or misusing IP copyrights or patents.
That's a given. Heck, it's not the only attack either: Microsoft
et al. are working on multiple fronts to kill Linux and open
source in general. It's what happens next that is important: do
we come out of this OK or not? Does the GPL stand up? This
was and is inevitable; it's what happens next that counts.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!
newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news3.optonline.net!
pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no> <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
<d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no> <bme5i9$m2u$1@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 151
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <z3zib.84619$6C4.33680@pd7tw1no>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:57:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066057055 24.69.255.232
(Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:57:35 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:57:35 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:338
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that.
>>I have
> A theory is an opinion, boopy.
Bwahahahaha...
>>behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source
>>community INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that
>>have done an extensive analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence
>>Lessig, noted author and law professor at Stanford University
>>and hundreds of corporate, government and IT leaders have all
>>voiced support for our cause.
> And other legal experts have said otherwise.
Really? Name one legal expert that has analyzed the claims and legal
theories and supports the SCO arguments.
>>Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In
>>The Know" engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code?
>>A thousand lines of code? Any identifiable passage of code?
>>Have you?
> Basic logic: If you see Joe at point x and time y, he was there.
<clipped mealy mouthed bit>
So your answer is NO!
>>Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why
>>don't you outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be
>>otherwise.
>>Now, either Put up or Shut up! No mealy mouthed cop-outs about
>>how The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group could have
>>done it different or how The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The
>>SCO Group are misunderstood copyright owners looking for payment
>>from a community that is founded on free contribution and
>>distribution of code.
> Mealy mouthed cop-outs? My, aren't we the angry little man.
First of all, I already admitted in an earlier post that I was pissed.
Second, I stand 6'3" and well massed - I am 100% red headed Viking so the
"little man" comment doesn't apply.
> I am of the opinion that people at SCO honestly believe they have
> been ripped off and that they deserve damages. I suspect they
> are probably wrong, I know they are morally wrong from my viewpoint,
> but I sure as hell don't know what evidence they have or don't have.
> I'll say it again: if I had to choose under pain of death, I'd
> bet they lose this. But that's just a guess, just an opinion.
I once knew a woman who was *certain* that she was never wrong - she was
mistaken about other things as well.
> It is EXTREMELY unlikely that they are making this all up and lying
> outright. Lying about something like this to manipulate stock prices
> would not go down well with the SEC. People go to jail for such things.
I am not certain that any of this has to do with stock price manipulation.
It is my belief (opinion) this has a lot more to do with Microsoft - I do
know that Microsoft is spreading around a ton of money to discredit open
source and Linux.
> You are much too angry.. :-)
I am pissed.
> There's a much larger picture here that has to do with people
> who believe that they can own ideas and those who don't. I fall
> into the second category, SCO and IBM are definitely in the
> first camp. It's funny to see IBM embracing open source, but
> the reality is that their reasons aren't at all what they seem.
I am not going to debate IP with you - the law is the law.
I understand the laws concerning derivative works - it means that the IP of
one entity is *included* in a subsequent work. Typically a minimum of 10%
change or modification is required to constitute a new work BUT there are
many considerations too numerous for this discussion.
e.g. Somebody patents an automotive tire and then someone else creates a
special design suitable for Winter, then the Winter tire is a derivative
work of the original tire because it contains many essential elements of
the original patent but adds value with additional technology.
What doesn't count as a derivative work are disparate or insular additions.
e.g. Somebody patents the automobile tire and then somebody else invents
Winter chains for traction, or lightweight rims for mounting the tire, or
quick release spin-lock mounting features. All are related to the tire but
are separate and not considered derivative works because they do not
contain any of the proprietary elements of the tire patent.
It is a little different with copyright but the analysis is a lot simpler
because copyright is all about expression, not ideas.
If copyrighted proprietary material is included in a new work, then it is
considered derivative - that is the test.
Ideas and concepts are not protectable under copyright, that is the province
of patents.
> Sooner or later, somebody was going to attack open source in this
> way, accusing it of stealing or misusing IP copyrights or patents.
> That's a given.
Bullshit - the GPL has already stood the test of time and turmoil. The fact
that it is still standing says a lot about it's legitimacy.
> Heck, it's not the only attack either: Microsoft et al.are working
> on multiple fronts to kill Linux and open source in general.
Really? What a strange coincidence that Microsoft is the only reason
Caldera/SCO is operating at a profit for the first time in it's existence.
Hmmmm...
> It's what happens next that is important: do we come out of this
> OK or not? Does the GPL stand up? This was and is inevitable;
> it's what happens next that counts.
The thing that happens next is nothing but more Lies, Deceit and Delays from
The SCO Group - they cannot hope to win in any venue, they dare not
actually send out invoices as they have threatened and they are unlikely to
even sell a license for code that is not there.
In the mean time, they are being supported almost totally by Microsoft.
Does that not set off some alarms for you?
SCO is perpetrating a massive FUD program using faulty unsupportable legal
arguments - this will be the basis of their defense when they lose it all,
that will keep them out of jail and Microsoft out of the sights of the DOJ
and World opinion.
I cannot say that I have suffered personally from SCO's FUD *BUT* I truly
love the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL and I am angered by this attack.
Now, anyone want to debate some specifics? I am not interested in hearing
about undisclosed sources or what someone heard - Just The Facts, Man!
Best regards,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!
newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news3.optonline.net!
pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<8mhib.79225$6C4.9644@pd7tw1no> <bmcsd5$ksq$2@pcls4.std.com>
<d%sib.81145$9l5.44198@pd7tw2no>
<3f8a9795$0$29357$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Lines: 328
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <HsAib.84959$6C4.75168@pd7tw1no>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:32:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066062759 24.69.255.232 (Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:32:39 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:32:39 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:343
Kim Petersen wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote...
>>>Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>>>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>>>>Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>>>>>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>>>>>>swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>>>>>>are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.
>>>No. It's your OPINION.
> I've tried to ignore your SSLT bullshit throughout this,
It was in the clipboard buffer, what can I say?
>> Lets review:
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group announce that Their
>> Unix Code has been improperly copied into the Linux Kernel 2.4 series.
> yep
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to identify
>> what code they claim as theirs without individuals signing a
>> rights-sucking NDA.
> yep - although they have quite accurately stated where at least a
> *very* large portion of the code they are suing over is.[in my
> opinion something that they aren't going to win - but thats *my*
> opinion] - namely in the NUMA etc. code that IBM contributed to
> Linux - now this code is copyrighted by IBM - but SCO is claiming
> that this (while IBM retains the rights) is a breach of *contract*
> between the two parties. This is what the SCO vs. IBM case is about -
> _not_ copyright.
SCO are claiming NUMA is a derivative work, iy does not stand the legal test
of derivative work - see other post this thread.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group show the alledged
>> offending code to people who sign the NDA but said code is miniscule
>> in volume, is disguised to prevent identification AND is impossible
>> to verify - no provenance! Just what was the point of the NDA if
>> they show NOTHING?
> Actually i think a Linux Journal man, has seen some of the code under
> the NDA - and has stated that the code is definitely in Linux and that
> part probably wasn't BSD - but he can't tell much except that the code
> would have very little impact if in fact it needed to be removed.
I read that but he stated clearly that it was stripped of copyright notices,
dates and there was no provenance. That is not proof - it is as if the NDA
and obfuscation was to prevent anyone verifying the truth of the alledged
proof.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's alledged offending
>> code is revealed at the annual SCO Forum and is immediately identified
>> as not proprietary at all and in one case is not even owned by the The
>> Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group.
> None of the two codeexamples were actually SCO's - one is in the public
> domain - first time published in the 70's - and second example is pure
> BSD.
By coincidence, Caldera had also BSD licensed the same passages of code.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group now claim over a
>> million lines of Linux 2.4 kernel actually belongs to them and yet
>> once again they refuse to identify a single line.
> And this actually adds up - *if* the claim SCO has brought against the
> IBM contract is correct - then the code that is tainted with these
> contributions come to around this number (this is documented several
> places on the various groups (eg. Groklaw)). Now this doesn't mean that
> if SCO wins (and again i seriously doubt it) we'll have to dig away all
> of it - because most of it is macro's and constants used from the
> contributions.
Copyright law is pretty clear and specific about what constitutes derivative
works - please see my other post this thread.
>> SGI has access to the entire codebase of The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves
>> at The SCO Group Unix and does an extensive search and finds a couple
>> trivial passages which they state has been BSDed and as such not a
>> violation of any proprietary rights but just to be safe they remove the
>> code.
> And again this is not what this case is about. It *is* a contract case -
> *not* a copyright one. [what SCO is actually suing IBM over is not the
> same as the FUD they are spreading via the media].
It is about derivative works and who has rights - that is all available in
the contracts included as plaintiff's exhibits, an addendum - give them a
read!
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
>> delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's
>> proof of violation of proprietary rights.
> This is a regular tactics, nothing new under the sun here - they will
> eventually have to deliver the documents - but in the meantime, they
> are using their right to stall.
Regular tactics? SCO is the plaintiff. How can it possibly be considered
"regular tactics" for the plaintiff to instigate a campaign of delay?
Further, every delay is considered when determining costs and damages.
Could there be an ulterior motive for the delays? Like THERE IS NO CASE!
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group maintain a constant
>> stream of PR events filled with accusations, threats, outright lies
>> concerning proprietary code, the Linux community, The General Public
>> License and even the law.
> Here I'm 100% in agreement (except for the SSLT part).
I emphatically insist that is their full legal name.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are now handing
>> out t-shirts asking the question "is unix in your linux?"
> It's according to the contract claim still a question.
I have never seen an IP case like this in my entire life and I have been
involved with IP litigation for over ten years.
If I was a big name lawyer running this IP case and my clients were
conducting themselves like SCO is doing, I would hand them off to a much
junior partner - Wait a minute, hasn't that already happened?
8^0
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's road show is showing
>> minute attendance by pissed off resellers and yet they still refuse to
>> reveal a single line of code that they have absolute exclusive ownership
>> of that is included in Linux kernel 2.4.xx.
> See above - your repeating yourself.
see my other post concerning what are derivative works and details of the
IBM/SCO contract.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have threatened
>> repeatedly to send invoices to Linux users but it has never happened -
>> as a matter of fact, every attempt to pay for and secure an SCO Linux
>> license has failed.
> Yes, and they will fail miserably if they ever do this.
Do you not see a pattern here?
What is the product of SCO's claims? It won't be a financial court room win
because SCO is refusing to mitigate damages. It isn't licensing income
because they dare not sell a license for code that doesn't exist. It can't
be a moral vindication because they are delaying at every turn.
The product is simple for all to see: It is a FUD attack against Linux
funded by Microsoft.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group claim their new
>> SCOsource initiative has seen them through two quarters of profit-
>> ability BUT their only clients are Linux's most bitter rivals -
>> Microsoft and SUN.
> Its not a lie - its a fact. Now it may not be good business because
> revenue is dropping off in the foreseeable future - but its still correct.
It is a lie because the fundsing is not for any alledged license rights but
to fund an IP attack against the Open Source Community, the GPL and Linux.
This very type of attack was anticipated by one of the infamous Microsoft
Halloween documents.
>> The claimed reason The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group
>> refuse to reveal the offending code in not founded in law - as a
>> matter of actual fact, the law is very clear about identifying each
>> violation in order to mitigate damages.
> Actually its very much their right
Of course they can conduct their case any way they want but it should be
founded on legal precepts.
You can only call an Ace an ACE if it indeed is an Ace. (you can quote me)
> - we can discuss if they can have retributionary licensing based on
> something they wouldn't reveal
Would you care to cite a single case where such a tactic has been argued?
> [my opinion - not very likely *even* within the state of the american
> justice system]
Bloody right not likely!
> We can also discuss if they actually still will hold the rights to the
> parts *if* the case is won - if they don't reveal the code now. But
> your statement is false/misguiding.
Relief from copyright infringement is very clear - do you know what it is?
I await your cite, opinion or brief.
I stand 100% by my statement as NOT false or misleading.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have attacked the Open
>> Source community, the Linux community, the General Public License,
>> commercial Linux users, Linus Torvalds, all the talented coders that have
>> worked so hard developing & maintaining the open source codebase and
>> everything that is great about free software and yet continues to
>> distribute the Linux 2.4 kernel, continues to distribute GNU/Open Source
>> products with their proprietary Unix and are even bragging about the
>> upcoming release of Samba 3.0.
> Yes, its hippocritical - but then nothing in the GPL states that your
> morals have to be high to use opensource software.
Well, actually you are wrong. The GPL is very clear about people who violate
the GPL - they are prohibitted from distributing GPLed code.
Give it a read.
>> Despite all the rhetoric, accusations, announcements and threats, The
>> Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have yet to file a single
>> suit against any Linux user, distributor or contributor for a
violationnaive
>> of copyright.
> Learn and distinguish - FUD vs. actual Claim and reverse.
Well... Duh!
So, what purpose is being served by the FUD?
>> Now I have a hard question for you: Just how stupid are you, Anthony?
>> Are you really so stupid that you can't connect the dots to some logical
>> conclusion?
> Actually i'd state the same question to you - while you seem to have
> read up on the case - you don't seem to have your facts straight -
> good advice - read Groklaw - think - read again - think - think hard.
I have read the complaint, have reviewed the exhibits and have followed
GrokLaw from beginning to end.
Why don't you show me where I have the facts wrong - be specific.
>> You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that. I
>> have behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source
>> community INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that have
>> done an extensive analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence Lessig,
>> noted author and law professor at Stanford University and hundreds
>> of corporate, government and IT leaders have all voiced support for
>> our cause.
> Linus (not Linux)
Wow, a typo...
> has stated very little about this case - the one thing that he has
> stated is that he *believes* that SCO are "full of it".
Well?
> I don't have the time and energy just for this text to read up on
> Lawrence Lessigs opinion - but i'll venture the guess that 1) he
> believes that SCO will lose 2) that the FUD SCO is spreading about
> the GPL is highly unlikely 3) that the statement that SCO has made
> about copyright meaning exactly ONE copy is false.
Correct as far as it goes but factor in SCO's willful violation of the GPL
and the consequences of distributing GPLed code where you claim proprietary
rights - give it a look in.
> Support is not law.
You would be surprised. By the way, how exactly was Microsoft punished after
being found to be a predatory monopoly?
You are very naive.
> Opinions won't win a lawsuit.
That is not true either, opinion is how a case is determined.
> Even law professors can be wrong.
Water runs downhill, except when it doesn't. (you can quote me)
I look forward to any cites that validate the legal claims and theories as
proposed by the SCO Group.
>> Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In The Know"
>> engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code? A thousand lines of
>> code? Any identifiable passage of code? Have you?
> read above
You are evading.
There correct answer is either yes or no.
I take that as a NO then.
>> Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why don't you
>> outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be otherwise.
>> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are nothing but Scum
>> Sucking Lying Thieves.
> Faulty logic wont prove statements.
Do you mean "won't"?
Now, why don't you tell me why SCO is threatening the Linux community, the
Open Source community and the GPL if it's not for monetary gain?
Could it be that the whole event is a set piece attack to discredit Linux by
Microsoft?
Do you have any arguments against such an obvious conclusion?
Best regards,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!
sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!
66.250.146.10.MISMATCH!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!
63.218.45.11.MISMATCH!newshosting.com!
news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!
news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
<vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
<MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04> <bmcqov$ksq$1@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <7lVib.93674$9l5.84038@pd7tw2no>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:18:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066148291 24.69.255.232
(Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:18:11 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:18:11 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:382
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the
>>server market?
> They are. Not much of a competitor, but a competitor just the same.
SCO market share hardly constitutes noise in the server market.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!
dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1
From: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:51:55 -0700
Organization: Committee to Maintain an Independent Xenix
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <35uqov4d7mvn2tghluema737dqt8pa0ivd@4ax.com>
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
<vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
<MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04>
<bmcqov$ksq$1@pcls4.std.com> <7lVib.93674$9l5.84038@pd7tw2no>
Reply-To: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-373.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:453
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:18:11 GMT, Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
wrote:
>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>>You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the
>>>server market?
>
>> They are. Not much of a competitor, but a competitor just the same.
>SCO market share hardly constitutes noise in the server market.
>Brian
Yawn. By number of seats (licenses), number of boxes (servers), or by
dollar sales? Unix servers only, or are you including mainframes,
Windoze and Mac servers? The percentages are rather different. If
you consider that almost all of SCO previous $200 million per year
sales was in servers, that's not a trivial amount. Yeah, it's small,
but not insignificant.
Drivel: Chart of active internet web servers on Netcraft. It doesn't
include OS specific info, but is still rather interesting.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/10/01/
october_2003_web_server_survey.html
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!
news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!
53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <9si3ovo848pp8h4hjlrb5lsjoap4hm11ks@4ax.com>
<Pine.SC5.4.44.0310061503030.20109-100000@xenau105.zenez.com>
<QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no> <vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
<MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04> <bmcqov$ksq$1@pcls4.std.com>
<7lVib.93674$9l5.84038@pd7tw2no>
<35uqov4d7mvn2tghluema737dqt8pa0ivd@4ax.com>
Lines: 41
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <KaRjb.113368$9l5.3742@pd7tw2no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:23:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066393386 24.69.255.232
(Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:23:06 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:23:06 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:532
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:18:11 GMT, Brian wrote:
>>SCO market share hardly constitutes noise in the server market.
>>Brian
> Yawn. By number of seats (licenses), number of boxes (servers),
> or by dollar sales?
Yawn?
1999 Total Server Market: ~$60 Billion US
SCO Market Share: ~$200 Million US
1/3 of 1% constitutes noise.
For every sucker that spends $1000s + on an SCO network services license,
how many sharp administrators are deploying freely downloadable powerful
loaded Linux packages?
> Drivel: Chart of active internet web servers on Netcraft. It
> doesn't include OS specific info, but is still rather interesting.
> news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/10/01/october_2003_web_server_survey.html
Why include this - not relevant.
You aren't suggesting SCO has a place in the above metric, do you? Other
than as noise, that is?
Even the SCO newgroups are poorly attended and dull compared to second tier
Linux groups like Slackware.
Any way you cut it SCO server market share is way below the threshold of
most charts.
SCO is going away and will barely be missed.
SCO... yawn!
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!
129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!
newsp.newsguy.com!enews2
From: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:10:55 -0700
Organization: Committee to Maintain an Independent Xenix
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <hj70pv4g5ftup69rn8do5qjfi2fdhjngcm@4ax.com>
References: <QTrgb.35407$6C4.3699@pd7tw1no>
<60bd4c6b.0310070955.77adc1d4@posting.google.com>
<M9Qgb.46908$6C4.24540@pd7tw1no>
<vogl59h8akfd07@corp.supernews.com>
<vq7ib.75710$pl3.73544@pd7tw3no> <bmbbu0$e6d$1@pcls4.std.com>
<78gjovgb21g1l757dbr9tlbad8pb64lauk@4ax.com>
<MWlib.754007$uu5.129457@sccrnsc04>
<bmcqov$ksq$1@pcls4.std.com> <7lVib.93674$9l5.84038@pd7tw2no>
<35uqov4d7mvn2tghluema737dqt8pa0ivd@4ax.com>
<KaRjb.113368$9l5.3742@pd7tw2no>
Reply-To: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-694.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:555
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:23:06 GMT, Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:18:11 GMT, Brian wrote:
>>>SCO market share hardly constitutes noise in the server market.
>>>Brian
>> Yawn. By number of seats (licenses), number of boxes (servers),
>> or by dollar sales?
>
>Yawn?
Yep. Yawn.
>1999 Total Server Market: ~$60 Billion US
> SCO Market Share: ~$200 Million US
>1/3 of 1% constitutes noise.
$200 million includes the cost of the hardware. Not a very good basis
for comparison. Could I trouble you to answer my questions that you
surgically failed to quote?
"By number of seats (licenses), number of boxes (servers), or
by dollar sales? Unix servers only, or are you including
mainframes, Windoze and Mac servers?"
You're the one who suggested that SCO's sales constitutes "noise".
Kindly clarify and provide numbers (and sources). I'm lazy.
>For every sucker that spends $1000s + on an SCO network services license,
>how many sharp administrators are deploying freely downloadable powerful
>loaded Linux packages?
Different world. My SCO OS customers are small businesses (SMB)
consisting of retailers, animal hospitals, doctors offices,
warehouses, and repair shops. They tend to use vertical market
software where the operating system is bundled as part of a package.
There are no "sharp administrators" anywhere in sight, nor would my
customers know what to do with one. They probably couldn't afford to
have one around.
Linux would be a real option for them if it were bundled with the
applications and hardware. However, it will take some time before the
next generation of vertical market software comes with Linux in the
box. Lots of reasons, but mostly inertia. Also, the $1000 one saves
by using Linux instead of an SCO operating system will evaporate
instantly after the first crash or surprise. I've attempted to sell
Linux into this market for years with marginal success. The customers
want something that "just works" and does not require my exorbitant
labor rates to service. One crash will cost far more than the cost of
the OS.
>> Drivel: Chart of active internet web servers on Netcraft. It
>> doesn't include OS specific info, but is still rather interesting.
>
>> news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/10/01/october_2003_web_server_survey.html
>Why include this - not relevant.
Agreed. That's what the "Drivel:" proceeding the URL means. I
blundered across it while trying to find numbers for OS sales and
thought it might be of interest. Apparently not.
>You aren't suggesting SCO has a place in the above metric, do you? Other
>than as noise, that is?
It's not my place to suggest anything. You announced that SCO's sales
were "noise". It's your task to demonstrate your allegations, not
mine.
>Even the SCO newgroups are poorly attended and dull compared to second tier
>Linux groups like Slackware.
Perhaps that's because SCO products don't require all the support,
hand holding, or questions of Slackware? Just a thought. Quantity is
a tolerable repalcement for quality.
>Any way you cut it SCO server market share is way below the threshold of
>most charts.
Show me a chart please.
>SCO is going away and will barely be missed.
Probably true. As a company, I suspect it will be balkanized by
product and sold off piecemeal to support the stupid litigation. Even
if SCO were to prevail in the courts (in 2005), their reputation is a
basket case and probably unrecoverable.
>SCO... yawn!
>
>Brian
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!enigma.xenitec.on.ca!not-for-mail
From: Bill Andersen <bi...@mwdental.com>
Subject: RE: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Importance: Normal
Resent-From: mm...@xenitec.on.ca
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Submit-To: sco...@xenitec.on.ca
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Organization: [resent by] The SCOMSC gateway and Propagation Society
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:05:09 GMT
Message-ID: <NEBBLMPLNKHMEHJGNPIHAEMOFNAA.bill@mwdental.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
To: SCO <sco...@xenitec.on.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <hj70pv4g5ftup69rn8do5qjfi2fdhjngcm@4ax.com>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: enigma.xenitec.on.ca
Originator: ne...@enigma.xenitec.on.ca (News subsystem owner)
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ne...@enigma.xenitec.ca (News subsystem owner)
Precedence: list
Lines: 35
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:564
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Different world. My SCO OS customers are small businesses (SMB)
> consisting of retailers, animal hospitals, doctors offices,
> warehouses, and repair shops. They tend to use vertical market
> software where the operating system is bundled as part of a package.
> There are no "sharp administrators" anywhere in sight, nor would my
> customers know what to do with one. They probably couldn't afford to
> have one around.
>
> Linux would be a real option for them if it were bundled with the
> applications and hardware. However, it will take some time before the
> next generation of vertical market software comes with Linux in the
> box. <snip>
Jeff, that is a real good point. I just can't seem to find any
good software for Linux. Yeah, Yeah, there is all the OS stuff.
You can get Samba, Web Servers, lots of cool tools. But if everyone
thinks Linux is going to "take over the world", then why can't I
find software to run a business? I'd like a good character based
accounting package with good inventory control, distribution and
a decent General Ledger. Those are the tools that are used to
run a business. Granted, Linux makes a good "storage device" by
using Samba - that is what I use it for. But any decent accounting
software I can find is only on SCO OpenServer or AIX or other type
of Unix... Not on Linux! Linux and "Enterprise Server"? HA!
Brian, FrYE, make a liar out of me! Please!!! Show me any good
character based accouting/distribution packages that run on Linux.
_I_ can't find them. They all seem to like SCO OpenServer (or AIX).
Linux is still a toy when it comes to actually RUNNING a business!
Until the APPs are there, it will not be a REAL threat... Not
everyone needs to host web sites.
Bill
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!
newsp.newsguy.com!enews1
From: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:52:07 -0700
Organization: Committee to Maintain an Independent Xenix
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <00r0pvsuhvnmhadv4sg3u5bmk1735dcj11@4ax.com>
References: <hj70pv4g5ftup69rn8do5qjfi2fdhjngcm@4ax.com>
<NEBBLMPLNKHMEHJGNPIHAEMOFNAA.bill@mwdental.com>
Reply-To: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-768.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:586
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:05:09 GMT, Bill Andersen <bi...@mwdental.com>
wrote:
>Brian, FrYE, make a liar out of me! Please!!! Show me any good
>character based accouting/distribution packages that run on Linux.
>_I_ can't find them. They all seem to like SCO OpenServer (or AIX).
Insert standard complaint about companies using bookkeeping,
accounting, home banking, and personal finance, interchangeably.
Lack of commercial apps is a common complaint. Programmists scribble
programs for programmists, not for mortal users or permanent
beginners. However, there is hope. See:
http://www.woa.com.au/linux/lists/bookkeeping.html
for a thoroughly out of date list of bookkeeping software for Linux.
I just love the editorial comments on some. I'm not familiar with all
of them but the ones mentioned critically, I've experienced some of
the same problems.
In the past, most accounting packages I've used were dBase transplants
running on Foxplus or FoxPro. With the implementation of SQL clones
and DB2 ported under Linux, there should be more to choose from:
http://www.linuxlinks.org (Try "accounting" in the search box).
Google and TuCows have their own Linux search page:
http://www.google.com/linux
http://linux.tucows.com
Drilling down:
http://linux.tucows.com/accounting_default.html
yields nothing useful. Oh well.
http://sourceforge.net (Try: "accounting" in the search box).
That yields quite a few with the usual GL, AP, OE, AR, etc modules.
Worth a look methinks.
The list of companies that implement Linux in one form or other are
impressive.
http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/
Lots of internet related implementations. The list gets kinda skimpy
around vertical market SMB adopters.
However, don't lose hope. I'm sure there will eventually be more
decent accounting and bookkeeping apps for Linux. Programmists will
eventually tire of writing free utilities or run out of money and
condescend to perhaps writing something useful (but not for free).
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: br...@aljex.com (Brian K. White)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers...
Date: 18 Oct 2003 02:34:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <60bd4c6b.0310180134.25f173ee@posting.google.com>
References: <hj70pv4g5ftup69rn8do5qjfi2fdhjngcm@4ax.com>
<NEBBLMPLNKHMEHJGNPIHAEMOFNAA.bill@mwdental.com>
<00r0pvsuhvnmhadv4sg3u5bmk1735dcj11@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.92.165.223
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066469670 555 127.0.0.1 (18 Oct 2003 09:34:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:606
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote in message news:<00r0pvsuhvnmhadv4...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:05:09 GMT, Bill Andersen <bi...@mwdental.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Brian, FrYE, make a liar out of me! Please!!! Show me any good
> >character based accouting/distribution packages that run on Linux.
> >_I_ can't find them. They all seem to like SCO OpenServer (or AIX).
>
> Insert standard complaint about companies using bookkeeping,
> accounting, home banking, and personal finance, interchangeably.
>
> Lack of commercial apps is a common complaint. Programmists scribble
> programs for programmists, not for mortal users or permanent
> beginners. However, there is hope. See:
> http://www.woa.com.au/linux/lists/bookkeeping.html
> for a thoroughly out of date list of bookkeeping software for Linux.
> I just love the editorial comments on some. I'm not familiar with all
> of them but the ones mentioned critically, I've experienced some of
> the same problems.
>
> In the past, most accounting packages I've used were dBase transplants
> running on Foxplus or FoxPro. With the implementation of SQL clones
> and DB2 ported under Linux, there should be more to choose from:
> http://www.linuxlinks.org (Try "accounting" in the search box).
> Google and TuCows have their own Linux search page:
> http://www.google.com/linux
> http://linux.tucows.com
> Drilling down:
> http://linux.tucows.com/accounting_default.html
> yields nothing useful. Oh well.
> http://sourceforge.net (Try: "accounting" in the search box).
> That yields quite a few with the usual GL, AP, OE, AR, etc modules.
> Worth a look methinks.
>
> The list of companies that implement Linux in one form or other are
> impressive.
> http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/
> Lots of internet related implementations. The list gets kinda skimpy
> around vertical market SMB adopters.
>
> However, don't lose hope. I'm sure there will eventually be more
> decent accounting and bookkeeping apps for Linux. Programmists will
> eventually tire of writing free utilities or run out of money and
> condescend to perhaps writing something useful (but not for free).
A lot of things that can run on linux probably do not show up in the
places one usually looks for lists of things that run on linux. Many
commercial apps that have many years of development under their belts
on SCO are now available on linux. Example: Take a mere two
programming languages I happen to be familiar with that have both been
around a long time for sco (since the earliest xenix days) and yet are
both still around now with their manufacturers doing new work to this
day: filePro and BBx.
these have both been available in native linux versions for years, and
code written for sco runs without modification on linux (barring the
usual caveat about specific system commands and assumptions about
certain directories/files etc... usually a tiny fraction of an app
that is very easy to adapt. And before there were native linux
versions, the sco versions of both could be run on linux thanks to
iBCS and later linux-abi. I know, I did so for different large
commercial apps in live production in both cases.
because of these two products being available for linux, many,
practically all applications which are written in these languages
automatically become available for linux. many of these apps are
expensive, highly specialised, very important apps that are not
mass-marketed. They are typical of the apps SCO has always been used
for, and so, mostly, linux is in fact a viable drop-in replacement for
sco (if you don't value stability, and I don't just mean time between
crashes but longer term stability, the ability to support lots of
clients without having to be a linux kernel hacker in order to keep up
with changes in the os from week to week)
So, when trying to see what is out there available in the way of
mature production-class apps for linux, don't just look at linux
sites, but look also at any apps you might already know of that run on
any unix already, and see if they or their parent language/database
are either ported to linux natively or will run on it via linux-abi.
And don't discount the linux-abi option on general principle. You
might have to stick to a certain no-longer super-current version of
linux for a particular app to be fully functional under abi since as
linux and linux-abi progress, the goodness of both waxes & wanes, but
sometimes it is good and mostly you just need to identify the magic
"good" versions and stick to them.
I had an app (pc miler) that is only available as a set of binaries
(it's not written on top of some language where I can transplant it to
the same language on another platform like filepro or bbx) where the
vendor did not yet offer a linux version. Their sco version ran fine
in linux-abi, as proven for over a year of production use by about 110
users using code I wrote which runs this app in the background a
*lot*. several times per new record added or updated in our filepro
app. Never burped and rarely even showed up in "top". It met every
definition of "viable" I can think of, even though it was totally
unsupported by the vendor.
I say all this merely to fill in what I saw as a gap in awareness.
Personally, I will be dragged kicking and screaming and clawing and
just about crying to start installing linux boxes where we currently
install open server. If and when we ever do that, life will get sooo
much less predictable and sane and satisfying.
When the apps we need become viable on freebsd, I will gladly start
preparing a freebsd based package and fleshing out my ability to
support it. filePro is coming to freebsd soon, but I need several
other things, and the little I've tested, freebsd's linux emulation
was not good enough to run the native linux versions of these apps,
and it's ibcs/svr4 emulation was even worse for trying to run the
native sco versions. This was as of 4.[89]-stable some months ago.
I don't hate linux. I hate linux in the specific context where open
server's reliability and rabid backwards compatibility make it the
only sanely supportable option. Outside of that, I rather like it.
It's resposible for a hell of a lot of unix development that we all
benefit from. I myself learned unix from about equal parts linux and
xenix. I just wish more people would realise the value of stability
and not be so ready to throw it away when they don't have anything
nearly as good to replace it with.
The stupid ignorant kids all make faces and cry "eww get rid of this
old sco crap!" and throw a linux box in where a sco box was, but,
since they were not around for the last 12 years while that sco box
ran and ran and ran without a spec of maintenace, they don't know how
much worse off they are with their new linux box that they have to
constantly patch. Customers see the change for the worse loud and
clear, but they are more or less helpless and they just have to suffer
whatever their consultant does. All for what? A stupid friggn bash
shell?? I swear that is all some people ultimately are complaining
about in my dealings with other people who occasionally know a little
linux and come into passing contact with one of my customers sco
boxes. The stock sco /bin/sh shell does not allow arrow-key line
editing or arrow-key command history or tab-completeion, and because
of that, "sco sux".
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed1.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!
news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: SCO drops loyal resellers...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <hj70pv4g5ftup69rn8do5qjfi2fdhjngcm@4ax.com>
<NEBBLMPLNKHMEHJGNPIHAEMOFNAA.bill@mwdental.com>
<00r0pvsuhvnmhadv4sg3u5bmk1735dcj11@4ax.com>
<60bd4c6b.0310180134.25f173ee@posting.google.com>
Lines: 43
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <Qockb.121648$pl3.25512@pd7tw3no>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:48:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066488496 24.69.255.232 (Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:48:16 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:48:16 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:609
Brian K. White wrote:
> The stupid ignorant kids all make faces and cry "eww get rid of this
> old sco crap!" and throw a linux box in where a sco box was, but,
> since they were not around for the last 12 years while that sco box
> ran and ran and ran without a spec of maintenace, they don't know how
> much worse off they are with their new linux box that they have to
> constantly patch. Customers see the change for the worse loud and
> clear, but they are more or less helpless and they just have to suffer
> whatever their consultant does. All for what? A stupid friggn bash
> shell?? I swear that is all some people ultimately are complaining
> about in my dealings with other people who occasionally know a little
> linux and come into passing contact with one of my customers sco
> boxes. The stock sco /bin/sh shell does not allow arrow-key line
> editing or arrow-key command history or tab-completeion, and because
> of that, "sco sux".
Ah, the old steam powered operating system story... Can't say that I have
heard that one much since Novell tanked.
Listen Brian W., it may be true that SCO OpenServer has been chugging away
for 12 years but I won't believe it until I see it. The oldest functioning
Linux box I have was put into service in 1995 (networked fax server) and it
has been running almost 24/7 since it was put online. I have had to replace
the hard drive and change the network card but aside from that it never
needs service.
One of the reasons it never needs service is it is not exposed to the 'Net
and it resides in a non-hostile LAN. It still runs telnet rather than ssh
and it does a relativley simple task exceptionaly well (serving two Intel
SatisFAXtion modems for a couple dozen workstations).
Now, why don't you point me to ANY SCO Unix box that is on the 'Net and
hasn't been serviced for 1 year and we can see how long it takes me to root
it.
8^)
I didn't think so.
Don't confuse stagnation for competance - bash rules.
Brian