For a moment I smiled

Most reports state he was 'terminated'

{sigh}

Missing Law Suits

You forgot

RedHat

AutoZone

Pah!

government regulators?

What do they have to do with the litigation?

Haha

My heart fucking bleeds. Bye!

Those who fight lawyers should see to it that in the process they do not become themselves lawyers

"It also stated the company expects to finalize details of the restructuring and to reach cash flow break-even for core operations within the next month."

Clearly the lawyer team is now working pro bono and is consulting for third parties to generate some cash.

doesn't want to be put down for good.

Oh, I hope they're put down for good. Good and gone. Dead. Unloved but never forgotten. Sink them to the bottom of the sea.

Terminated - good choice of words...

Why

Why don't SCO just go away and die a natural death?

We need to track him

Someone needs to run a website that will track such undesirables and parasites.

Someone might want to make sure that anyone they do business with in the future has nothing to do with certain types of crooks. Perhaps we could include RIAA lawyers, holocaust deniers, pushers of the Surveillance State and such like.

I understand the the UK construction industry has a database that will do the job.

I wonder if they issued...

$ killall -u dmcbride

on the way out the door?

:-)

bye.

It would be nice to think that this guy is now going to retire, no doubt he's managed to save a few quid, and finding time on his hands he might just download a copy of ubuntu or just for the sake of irony, redhat / fedora .... and actually like it.

You mean SCO did not boot Linux ?

Mines the one with the AIX install guide in the pocket

Kill it with fire

Scatter the ashes asunder. Obliterate what's left. (I used to drive a SCO system, I've known for a long time that they never intended to be in the software business.)

Sigh

I'll be glad when the company is terminated.

It already exists, Starlight

"Someone needs to run a website that will track such undesirables and parasites."

It is www.groklaw.net

@ Lewis Mettler 1

Regulators are involved because SCO is in chapter 11 bankruptcy.

That aside, I hope the company that bought SCO and then assumed its name (it used to be Caldera Systems, a pretty decent Linux distributor until they got delusions of code ownership) will finally be laid to rest in pieces soon. They're a laughing stock, and the stockholders aren't laughing.

Me, I'm chuckling to myself as the machines I am responsible for are merrily running AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD and several flavours of Linux, all without as much as a penny down to SCO Group.

Mine's the one with the printout of the GPL sticking out of the pocket.

SCO and RamBus

A pox on them both.

Small detail

"SCO" never bought the Unix stuff. That was the "real" SCO, the ones that changed their name to Tarantella, and are now part of Sun.

Current "SCO" is what used to be Caldera, which bought SCO (the OS) and the trademark; they switch to "The SCO Group" when they decided to play the FUD game. Thanks to them, the SCO trademark will live in infamy for decades to come.

Flames, 'coz that's how "SCO" is going down.

McBride

Was no doubt paid big money for being a CEO of a public company .. that he destroyed.

So now being a CEO with many years experience will no doubt roll on to another highly paid job, if not for private firms capable of googling his name, at least on the board of the odd company (perhaps legal firms) or government advisor.

Must hurt to have been a shareholder or on the staff at SCO, seeing the salary this turkey earned for doing sweet FA.

6 years too late

They should have sent him packing about 5 seconds after he finished announcing the hare-brained legal scheme which put them where they are today.

IBM will gladly buy them for $2M

that is $2M more then they are worth.....just call 1800-ibm-help

So who is still stirring this pot?

IIRC Microsoft had given them a cash injection at one point.

As long as this nonsense continues MS can wave the FUD of a *possible* win and "gosh corporate america, your open source server code might not be so anymore. Why take the risk when you can have a sensible licensing arrangement with ourselves."

Good new that the gang of 4 has now become 3.

Icon because this seems to benefit only one player and with their track record its the sort of fairly shabby business practice you would expect.

@AC - Enjoyed Xenix?

Not sure I understand Microsoft's mismanagement. While they were responsible for the port/rewrite of UNIX that produced Xenix, at no time have they had any control of UNIX. They bailed out of the UNIX market when the original SCO was spun off to a separate company, and the rest is a history of competition.

It is ironic to recall that at one time early in their history, Microsoft did actually see themselves as a UNIX vendor, making statements to the effect that their future was DOS desktop systems clustered around UNIX servers. They were an AT&T source code licensee.

I recollect that at the time, Xenix/286 was regarded as a poor UNIX port, as it did not adhere to man Section 2 system call semantics . I believe that this was only pulled together when (original) SCO joined AT&T, SUN and other notable UNIX vendors in the SVR4 converged UNIX venture, although I am prepared to be corrected on this.

BTW. As it is a trademark, UNIX should always be capitalised.

Anyway, I will be glad when the FUD that SCO have been peddling finally goes away.

IBm was sued for putting IBM code in Linux

Just to put this straight

IBM was sued for putting code IBM wrote for its implementation of UNIX into Linux, not any other UNIX code anyone else wrote in.

Think about that for a second

As it turns out even that was bogus. as the code came from OS/2

Ina sane world this would have been shut down years ago.

Yes please Mr McBride...

...I /will/ have fries with that.

:D

core versus none core

software==none core

legal==core

That is all

Who's left???

Just who hasn't SCO sued?

From their site ..

SCO v. IBM

SCO v. Novell

SCO v. Autozone

Red Hat v. SCO

Only one left is

SCO v. SCO

Shame!

Nah nah nah nah! Nah nah nah nah!

Way hay hay! Gooodbye!

( repeat )

Total waste of DNA that guy was. It wasn't as if they even stood a snowball's chance, but he kept trying and trying!

@Saucerhead Tharpe

As I remember it, it was the JFS code that IBM wrote for AIX 3.1 that was the main issue. SCO were arguing that this was a derived wok from the AT&T source, although it was more like an evolution of the BSD4.4 filesystem, complete with distributed Inodes and block bitmap for the free space. The whole concept of derivative works currently appears to be sparking controversy with GPL2, which just shows how convoluted US Copyright law is. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/

All the LVM and hooks to extend filesystems were as far as I am aware IBM innovations that were actually new code unique to AIX.

Subsequently, IBM contributed the original LVM and JFS code to the Open Software Foundation, where it became used by several different vendors who implemented OSF/1 (although I don't believe that DEC used it in their implementation, they preferred their own Advanced File System [not to be confused with the Andrew File System]). This did not cause a problem, because all OSF members were already UNIX source licensees.

It is obviously now available for Linux, which caused the whole furore.

If anybody sees my copy of the Lyons annotated V6 UNIX code, I would be grateful to hear, as it appears to have fallen out of my coat pocket whilst in the cloakroom.

Lions' Commentary on Unix

Now, the interesting thing about the legitimately published (1996) edition of Lions' is that it finally got the nod /because/ the Original SCO (thought they had?) bought Unix from Novell (Michael Tilson, of the Original SCO, wrote a prefatory note). So, if they didn't, is the book illegitimate?