Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


		         SCO Mailing List Archives

From: FyRE at toktik.demon.ku.oc.x (FyRE)
Date: Wed Mar 10 15:45:09 2004
Subject: SCO stock crashing hard.
Message-ID: <3b9v405jjjmcsgakvo57ep0ng535vdegvn@4ax.com>

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=3m

Now that just puts a big old smile on my face ;-) About time some of
the clueless investors woke up. Now that Microsoft are under the SEC
microscope, I don't think they'll be "buying more licences" or
"arranging funding" in SCOG any more. Without that lifeline, I'd
imagine SCOGs next quarters conference call (if the company is still
around) will be even more amusing than the last ;-)

Once SCOG are dead and buried, I predict a great summer!
-- 
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

From: jlselsewhere at my-deja.com (J. L. Schilling)
Date: Thu Mar 11 15:00:24 2004
Subject: SCO stock crashing hard.
References: <3b9v405jjjmcsgakvo57ep0ng535vdegvn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: < ff3c0649.0403111450.7404a7cd@posting.google.com>

FyRE < FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message news:
<3b9v405jjjmcsgakvo57ep0ng535vdegvn@4ax.com>...
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=3m
> 
> Now that just puts a big old smile on my face ;-) About time some of
> the clueless investors woke up. [...]

You're got one of those great unfalsifiable models going on here.
If the stock goes up, the investors are clueless.  If the stock goes
down, the clueless investors have been woken up.  If the stock goes
up again, the investors are still clueless but have fallen asleep 
again.  Good thing you're not American or I'd suspect you of believing
in ID as well.

Jonathan Schilling

From: FyRE at toktik.demon.ku.oc.x (FyRE)
Date: Tue Mar 23 14:15:04 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
Message-ID: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=3m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

Again SCOG raise the bar with a very impressive 7% drop in their share
price. What amuses me are the headlines on the main page for SCOX
(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX). SCOG have desperately tried to
paint this utter collapse as great news for investors. For example,
the headline: "	[external] SCO Group Likes Its Stock at These Levels".
That was back when the share price was just under double figures. If
it was true at that time, they must absolutely f*cking /love/ the
current price! ;-)

Still, at least good old Darl had a nice fat pay rise this year. I bet
the two or three techies left are really glad about that ;-)
-- 
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Tue Mar 23 19:00:06 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>
Message-ID: < tC68c.139678$Up2.106352@pd7tw1no>

FyRE wrote:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=3m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
> Again SCOG raise the bar with a very impressive 7% drop in their share
> price.

Speaking of stocks, RedHat enjoyed a $1.08 or 5.9% price increase today.

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT&d=c&t=1d&l=on&z=b&q=l

Lets review;

Since the truth has come out about SCO's ABI copyright claims 'Bwahahahaha',
SCO has been on a steady decline, like their earned revenue, market share
and credibility.

Now compare to RedHat, which works for it's money by providing software sets
and services, whose hare prices rise dramatically on word of their
subscriptions sales outperforming the street.

   SCO - Sux to be you.
RedHat - Dancing in the street.

One more time.

   SCO - Sux
RedHat - Dancing

Only an amazingly STUPID person (are you listening Tony) holds out hope for
SCO's survival. (Yes it could happen but it ain't gonna happen you moron)

8^)

Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer

From: jlselsewhere at my-deja.com (J. L. Schilling)
Date: Wed Mar 24 05:45:07 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>
Message-ID: < ff3c0649.0403240535.240fb4e6@posting.google.com>

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message news:
<87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>...
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=3m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
> [...] 

As long as you're playing stock chart art, try this one for VA Linux:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LNUX&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
Pretty impressive, eh?  Red Hat's a bit better at
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RHAT&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
but somebody sure took a bath along the way.

Jonathan Schilling

From brian at stanley-park.com  Wed Mar 24 07:16:38 2004
From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Wed Mar 24 07:30:08 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>
	<ff3c0649.0403240535.240fb4e6@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <qDh8c.900124$X%5.895967@pd7tw2no>

J. L. Schilling wrote:

<clipped for brevity>

> but somebody sure took a bath along the way.

Ah yes.. The Dot Com Bust! You are right John, that was Linux's fault.

What don't you ask yourself what will happen to Linux if RedHat and VALinux
both go broke? 

Absolutely nothing!

Now, ask yourself what happens when SCO disappears and all it's alledged IP
rights are tied up in court for the next five years?

What was that? Oh yes, you would be totally out of luck and product,
wouldn't you.

Whenever an open source company tanks, all the work remains to be taken up
by another group or absorbed by another project. That is not the case for
closed source companies that tank, is it?

Now if you want to debate realities rather than perceptions, I will have a
go. However, if you wish to just construct these straw man arguments, I
will just have to treat you like just another bitter moron.

Just so you know, RedHat, VA Linux and Novell are all enjoying a
Renaissance, in sharp contrast to SCO which is sliding into the abyss of
sub dollar valuations.

Brian

From sconews at nanniandjack.com  Wed Mar 24 08:41:53 2004
From: sconews at nanniandjack.com (Jack Hill, Just readin the News)
Date: Wed Mar 24 09:00:06 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
Message-ID: <200403241641.i2OGfrsi021233@osr506.nanniandjack.com>


brian@stanley-park.com blathered on Wed Mar 24 2004 :

> J. L. Schilling wrote:

> <clipped for brevity>

> > but somebody sure took a bath along the way.

> Ah yes.. The Dot Com Bust! You are right John, that was Linux's fault.

> What don't you ask yourself what will happen to Linux if RedHat and VALinux
> both go broke? 

> Absolutely nothing!

And you call US idiots, morons, and blind followers??? Sheesh!

> Now, ask yourself what happens when SCO disappears and all it's alledged IP
> rights are tied up in court for the next five years?

> What was that? Oh yes, you would be totally out of luck and product,
> wouldn't you.

What you and the rest of the zealots for Linux (ZFL) don't seem to grasp is that
the CUSTOMERS who currently iuse SCO operating software are NOT going to just
tank their investment and run for the exits... Many are running SCO OS from 
5, 10, and even 15 years ago... The OS works for them, and they will *NOT*
change their business around just because you bleat and spout your bilge.

I don't think any of us are in favor of what SCO is doing, but we are supposedly
intelligent people who recognize that no matter what you think or spout, it
ain't over, til it's over and the COURT makes it's decision. Up until the
judge and jury rule, ANYTHING can happen, including many things neither you
nor any of us want to see happen.

Canadians, among whom you seem to count yourself, are usually far more
intelligent and worldly, but I guess with Linux Blinders [tm] on, you have
only the vision dancing in your head, while we realize that whatever happens
there are customers who will need help, be it keeping their old systems running
or converting to some other OS. For us to abandon these businesses would be
unconscionable... to try to force them to change would be equally wrong.

We are not the mindless zealots for SCO that you want to portray us as. We
are just simple businessmen and technicians who are trying to do right by
our customers.

> will just have to treat you like just another bitter moron.

A "bitter moron" like you, perhaps?

> Just so you know, RedHat, VA Linux and Novell are all enjoying a
> Renaissance, in sharp contrast to SCO which is sliding into the abyss of
> sub dollar valuations.
Correctly stated, but totaqlly irrelevant to the people currently running
SCO OS who have neither plans to change nor a business reason to.

Are you implying that these people are ALL idiots?

--
Jack Hill, Just readin' the news
sconews@nanniandjack.com

From brian at stanley-park.com  Wed Mar 24 10:03:41 2004
From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Wed Mar 24 10:15:05 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <200403241641.i2OGfrsi021233@osr506.nanniandjack.com>
Message-ID: <14k8c.900538$X%5.447468@pd7tw2no>

Jack Hill, Just readin the News wrote:
> brian@stanley-park.com blathered on Wed Mar 24 2004 :
>> J. L. Schilling wrote:

>> <clipped for brevity>
 
>> > but somebody sure took a bath along the way.
 
>> Ah yes.. The Dot Com Bust! You are right John, that was Linux's fault.
 
>> What don't you ask yourself what will happen to Linux if RedHat and
>> VALinux both go broke?
 
>> Absolutely nothing!

> And you call US idiots, morons, and blind followers??? Sheesh!

Good argument... 'Sheesh!'

>> Now, ask yourself what happens when SCO disappears and all it's alledged
>> IP rights are tied up in court for the next five years?

>> What was that? Oh yes, you would be totally out of luck and product,
>> wouldn't you.

> What you and the rest of the zealots for Linux (ZFL) don't seem to grasp

I see, I am a Linux Zealot because I don't share your obsession with a dead
OS.

I must be wrong because I am not you!

> is that the CUSTOMERS who currently use SCO operating software are NOT

SCO adoption doesn't even qualify as noise in the chart of server platforms.

> going to just tank their investment and run for the exits... Many are
> running SCO OS from  5, 10, and even 15 years ago... The OS works for
> them, and they will *NOT* change their business around just because you
> bleat and spout your bilge.

Ah yes, the 'bleat your bilge' argument

I'm convinced! 

> I don't think any of us are in favor of what SCO is doing, but we are
> supposedly intelligent people who recognize that no matter what you think
> or spout, it ain't over, til it's over and the COURT makes it's decision.

You see, that is where we ARE different! I know SCO will not live long
enough to go to court with IBM let alone any other defendants. The fact
that you don't know that means you are the one that is 'blathering'!

> Up until the judge and jury rule, ANYTHING can happen, including many
> things neither you nor any of us want to see happen.

Ah yes, the 'Divine Intervention' or the 'Chaos rules over logic' argument.

The final argument of the total loser! The 'wishful thinking' defense! A
meteor might fall and destroy IBM's entire legal team and SCO wins.

Well guess what Jack, it ain't gonna happen! All your fuming and blustering
to the contrary!

> Canadians, among whom you seem to count yourself, are usually far more
> intelligent and worldly, but I guess with Linux Blinders [tm] on, you have
> only the vision dancing in your head, while we realize that whatever
> happens

Yes, I do believe Canadians are more informed and discerning, when it comes
to current events, than the majority of our US cousins.

> there are customers who will need help, be it keeping their old
> systems running or converting to some other OS. For us to abandon these
> businesses would be unconscionable...

Who asked you to abandon them?

That would be you putting some 'blathering' into my mouth.

> to try to force them to change would be equally wrong.

Do you really believe that?

Are you going to wait until the last moment before you inform your SCO
clients that the company that supports their OS is going to vapour lock in
the near future?  

> We are not the mindless zealots for SCO that you want to portray us as. We

I don't know about others in this NG but you do seem to fit the 'zealot'
moniker rather well.

> are just simple businessmen and technicians who are trying to do right by
> our customers.

Ah shucks, that's just great. Just good ol' boys minding yer own business.
 
>> will just have to treat you like just another bitter moron.

> A "bitter moron" like you, perhaps?

That is just so clever... You really do excel at NG repartee.

>> Just so you know, RedHat, VA Linux and Novell are all enjoying a
>> Renaissance, in sharp contrast to SCO which is sliding into the abyss of
>> sub dollar valuations.

> Correctly stated, but totally irrelevant to the people currently running
> SCO OS who have neither plans to change nor a business reason to.

The message was in reply to Mr.Schilling's straw man attack on a couple open
source companies. 

Didn't you get that?
 
> Are you implying that these people are ALL idiots?

No... not everyone. I thought I was pretty specific about that as well.
Perhaps you should reread the thread.

Quite frankly I don't care what any of you do as regards your SCO customers
- it is too small a metric to worry about.

The hope is that some hapless SCO client may wander into this NG and become
a little educated about their choice of OS supplier. Even better, any
future client may be warned off such a destructive course.

That may be against your interests - too bad.

Brian

From smcm at usa.net  Wed Mar 24 11:55:02 2004
From: smcm at usa.net (Scott McMillan)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:00:07 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <200403241641.i2OGfrsi021233@osr506.nanniandjack.com>
	<14k8c.900538$X%5.447468@pd7tw2no>
Message-ID: <7dp3601nhvftgttcf7kk8s5oku6k0bg41o@4ax.com>

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:03:41 GMT, Brian < brian@stanley-park.com>
wrote:

>Jack Hill, Just readin the News wrote:
>> brian@stanley-park.com blathered on Wed Mar 24 2004 :

<snipped>

>You see, that is where we ARE different! I know SCO will not live long
>enough to go to court with IBM let alone any other defendants. The fact

Incorrect.  You don't *know* that to be the case.  Call it whatever
you like - Gut feeling, assumption, whim, whatever - but you *don't
know* that will happen anymore than we do.

That *is* a fact.

<snipped>

>Brian

From brian at stanley-park.com  Wed Mar 24 16:12:29 2004
From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:30:08 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <200403241641.i2OGfrsi021233@osr506.nanniandjack.com>
	<14k8c.900538$X%5.447468@pd7tw2no>
	<7dp3601nhvftgttcf7kk8s5oku6k0bg41o@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Ntp8c.901423$X%5.875360@pd7tw2no>

Scott McMillan wrote:
> Brian < brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>You see, that is where we ARE different! I know SCO will not live long
>>enough to go to court with IBM let alone any other defendants. The fact

> Incorrect.

Erm, do you mean 'incorrect' like when I predicted that SCO had absolutely
no evidence of proprietary SysV code in Linux?

And guess what Tony's response to that prediction turning out to be correct?

More or less "..even morons can get lucky.."

Will that be your complaint if what I say turns out to be correct?

> You don't *know* that to be the case.

Yes I do - I have over 12 years of personal experience in civil IP
litigation. I also have almost 10 years of experience watching how Linux
develops and evolves.

> Call it whatever you like 

I can see how SCO is dragging it's feet at every turn in court after filing
suit against IBM. 

I have read the court documents including the transcripts of SCO's
appearances. 

I know there are layers of reasons why their ABI files claims will never get
to first base.

I also know SCO's IP claims against IBM's contributions to Linux will fail
even a trivial examination under copyright statute and caselaw. 

I also know that *NOBODY* would conduct a lawsuit in the public eye the way
SCO has if it was serious about winning at court.

> Gut feeling, assumption, whim, whatever - but you *don't
> know* that will happen anymore than we do.

I also know you are arguing semantics in place of producing real
counterpoints. 

In conclusion, you don't known Jack!

BURP! (Brian looks around...) 

NEXT!

Brian

From: jlselsewhere at my-deja.com (J. L. Schilling)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:30:04 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>
	<ff3c0649.0403240535.240fb4e6@posting.google.com>
	<qDh8c.900124$X%5.895967@pd7tw2no>
Message-ID: 

Brian < brian@stanley-park.com> wrote in message news:
<qDh8c.900124$X%5.895967@pd7tw2no>...
> J. L. Schilling wrote:
> 
> < clipped for brevity>
> 
> > but somebody sure took a bath along the way.
> 
> Ah yes.. The Dot Com Bust! You are right John, that was Linux's fault.

No, actually the Open Source/Linux Bust was separate from and pre-dated
the Dot Com Bust by a bit.  But yes, they were similar in nature.

> What don't you ask yourself what will happen to Linux if RedHat and VALinux
> both go broke? 
> 
> Absolutely nothing!

You're right about VA Linux (now VA Software or something).  But I disagree
about RedHat ... it's very identified with Linux at this point, and if it
went under it would cause a lot of corporate types to conclude (fairly or
unfairly) that Linux is an iffy proposition.
 
> Now, ask yourself what happens when SCO disappears and all it's alledged IP
> rights are tied up in court for the next five years?
> 
> What was that? Oh yes, you would be totally out of luck and product,
> wouldn't you.

No, as others have pointed out, when proprietary software companies fail,
the shards are usually picked by somebody who's willing to do maintenance
on it.  Nevertheless, you are correct in general, the "what happens if
the vendor goes under" issue is favorable to the open source approach.

> Now if you want to debate realities rather than perceptions, I will have a
> go. However, if you wish to just construct these straw man arguments, I
> will just have to treat you like just another bitter moron.

Stock market valuations are almost always about perceptions of one kind
or another.  And whether you agree with it or not, my post did not
constitute a "straw man", since I wasn't arguing against a false portrayal
of what anyone else was saying.  

> Just so you know, RedHat, VA Linux and Novell are all enjoying a
> Renaissance, in sharp contrast to SCO which is sliding into the abyss of
> sub dollar valuations.

The reason I posted the five-year charts is that conclusions about the
viability of different business approaches based on what's happening at
any given moment are hazardous.  As for RedHat, the IBM-Novell-SuSE-Ximian
conglomeration definitely looks like a threat to it right now.

Jonathan Schilling

From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Wed Mar 24 17:00:15 2004
Subject: The SCOG rollercoaster ride,,,
References: <87c1609phaoi6ir0ad45qg5kjlapb6e6eq@4ax.com>
	<ff3c0649.0403240535.240fb4e6@posting.google.com>
	<qDh8c.900124$X%5.895967@pd7tw2no>
	<ff3c0649.0403241208.3eddfa39@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <56q8c.144993$Up2.111847@pd7tw1no>

J. L. Schilling wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote...

>> > but somebody sure took a bath along the way.
 
>> Ah yes.. The Dot Com Bust! You are right John, that was Linux's fault.
 
> No, actually the Open Source/Linux Bust was separate from and pre-dated
> the Dot Com Bust by a bit.  But yes, they were similar in nature.

Yes, actually, it was the same event.
 
>> What don't you ask yourself what will happen to Linux if RedHat and
>> VALinux both go broke?

>> Absolutely nothing!
 
> You're right about VA Linux (now VA Software or something).  But I
> disagree about RedHat ... it's very identified with Linux at this point,
> and if it went under it would cause a lot of corporate types to conclude
> (fairly or unfairly) that Linux is an iffy proposition.

It would have absolutely NO EFFECT on the development and support of Linux.

How many prop-IP companies have disappeared taking all their technology to
the grave leaving customers and clients high and dry - that is the
question.

Nice dodge but No Cigar Jack. 

>> What was that? Oh yes, you would be totally out of luck and product,
>> wouldn't you.

> ...when proprietary software companies fail, the shards are usually 
> picked by somebody who's willing to do maintenance on it.

Now THAT is wishful thinking and not founded in fact.

> Nevertheless, you are correct in general, the "what happens if the 
> vendor goes under" issue is favorable to the open source approach.

I have also watched the SCO's legal/financial machinations as best I can and
I know the company will be overwhelmed with insider/shareholder lawsuits
when the end comes. Nobody will be able to leave SCO corporate headquarters
with so much as a stick pen without it being scrutinized for years by
numerous courts of authority, not to mention the SEC. 

>> Now if you want to debate realities rather than perceptions, I will have
>> a go. However, if you wish to just construct these straw man arguments, I
>> will just have to treat you like just another bitter moron.

> Stock market valuations are almost always about perceptions of one kind
> or another.  And whether you agree with it or not, my post did not
> constitute a "straw man", since I wasn't arguing against a false portrayal
> of what anyone else was saying.

Sorry Dude - total Straw Man. You introduced data that was and is totally
unrelated to the steady drum beat decline of SCO valuation.

SCO lives and dies by it's market value because it has no long term
sustainable income.

It took a year for Darl McBride to finally fess up and admit that there is
no proprietary SysV code in the Linux kernel and he only did it by proxy in
SCO's IBM court filings.

>> Just so you know, RedHat, VA Linux and Novell are all enjoying a
>> Renaissance, in sharp contrast to SCO which is sliding into the abyss of
>> sub dollar valuations.

> The reason I posted the five-year charts is that conclusions about the
> viability of different business approaches based on what's happening at
> any given moment are hazardous.

Bullshit - you were trying to make a cheap point based on an incorrect
alignment of facts.

Total Straw Man, Jack!

> As for RedHat, the IBM-Novell-SuSE-Ximian conglomeration definitely looks
> like a threat to it right now.

I use a customized Slackware Current for my client servers and KDE desktops.
Rock solid, very 'Unix like' layout and configuration.

What many of you SCO types don't seems to understand is that the Linux
community doesn't actually NEED the distro companies. We are more than
capable of rolling our own installations.

I don't need no stinkin' RedHat.

Brian

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/