Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera The Almighty Buck Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

BayStar Sets Lawyers on SCO 377

Posted by Hemos
from the racking-up-the-billable-hours dept.
myster0n writes "According to The Register: 'SCO's attempts to rescue its relationship with BayStar, its biggest backer, have come to naught. On Friday morning, Eastern time, SCO announced that the stock buyback deal it agreed with the unhappy investor had closed. Two hours and five minutes later, Baystar issued a statement saying that a) no it hadn't and b) we'll see you in court, matey.'" Thanks to The Reg for the write-up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BayStar Sets Lawyers on SCO

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Writer (746272) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:38AM (#9801306)
    "Ha ha!" (Nelson)
  • by Thng (457255) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:38AM (#9801308)
    so it should be "we'll see you in court, eh."
    • by Polkyb (732262) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:42AM (#9801346)

      I really can't see what all the fuss is aboot

    • by cdrudge (68377) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:44AM (#9801384) Homepage
      Actually they are in California [baystarcapital.com], so it should be "we'll see you in court, dude." You are probably thinking of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) that originally was apart of the $50m cash infusion that backed out a while ago when Baystar bought them out.
      • by JPelorat (5320) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:47AM (#9801421)
        Sounds like a good plot for "SCO and Darl's Bogus Journey"
        • by kryonD (163018)
          No inside info or anything, but there has been no successful attempt on IBM or Novell's part for a summary judgement in their favor. This does bring to question..."What if SCO is right?"

          Now, of course they were completely smoking crack to say the Linux community owes them ~$700 per copy of Linux used. But if they do indeed own the IP to some of Unix AND IBM did indeed slip a few bells and whistles into Linux without getting the propper blessing....then I would say the slashdot boards are going to be an i
          • by schon (31600) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:37AM (#9801956)
            What if SCO is right?

            Well, as that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse, I think we'll all have bigger things to worry about.

            Seriously - wondering "what if SCO is right?" is like wondering "what will I do if monkeys fly out of my butt?" After all, you've never had monkeys fly out of your butt before, so therefore the longer you go without having monkeys fly out of your butt, the greater the chance that they eventually will, right?

            the length this has drawn out does make one wonder.

            The length of time is simply a demonstration of how long someone can game the system. Why not simply ask "why has this drawn out so long, and SCO has yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support their claims?"
          • by gmack (197796) <gmack@innerfire . n et> on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:38AM (#9801958) Homepage Journal
            I think we need to take a good look at what they claim to own in their court filings:

            JFS? ported from OS/2.

            RCU? Initially refused by Linus until IBM granted all of opensource use of IBM's patent on the technology.

            ELF? Released to the open public as a standard by Novell, Old SCO, and Intel.

            There are more but they are along the same lines.

            This case is baseless.
    • by daeley (126313) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:46AM (#9801410) Homepage
      Now, now, now. There's no point in insulting our neighbors to the North with stereotypes that don't reflect the reality of a richly multicultural society.

      It should be "We'll see you in court, you hosers."
    • That was a translation to British.

      Slashdot being a US site, should therefore translate it again to "We'll see you in court, sucka"
    • by MLamar (23821)
      It read that way because the full text of the story was lifted from the story on The Register.
  • by Otter (3800) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:39AM (#9801315) Journal
    ...I'd advise drawing from this is to avoid business relationships with either of these companies.
    • I'm suprised (Score:3, Interesting)

      by autopr0n (534291)
      That baystar and RBC haven't been sued by their stockholders for not doing their due diligence. I mean, come on. I don't know if baystar is publicly traded or not but I'd be surprised of RBC wasn't.
  • Pains (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zorilla (791636) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:40AM (#9801328)
    Looks like SCO is about to finally see the damage they cause when they burn bridges via litigation. The less "business partners" SCO has, the shorter their life expectancy, which doesn't seem to consist of more than suing everybody, will be.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:48AM (#9801427)
      When those dueling press releases were issued friday July 23, 2004 only long time SCO2 watchers Stephen Shankland of Cnet "SCO, BayStar resume squabbling" and Eweeks Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols "BayStar Threatens to Sue SCO" reacted to the PR releases of SCO and Baystar (the later with a good double feature), joint by USA Todays Tech Investor "SCO says BayStar deal closed; BayStar disagrees".

      Today a second wave of Bad PR build up, starting with two refrubished Stephen Shankland
      articles in Australia, followed by Tom's Hardware Guide noting that SCO2 is in a "FiaSCO - SCO's war on Open Source about to be fought on six fronts" (notice that this is the same side that debunked Darl's Naked German Shorts before the last conference call was over)
      http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/200407 26_0528 39.html
      Next was Londons The Register to notice that "BayStar sets lawyers on SCO"

      When daylight crossed the atlantic, SCO2 tried to build a dam agaist the wave of bad PR and issued two press releases at 8 o'clock US east cost time in a desperate move to cover the bad news at the top of their news heap, to scroll it off the screens like a Troll posting bogus messages. Let't get some popcorn and see if it holds.
    • Re:Pains (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pieroxy (222434)
      All the SCO's executives are millionnaires now. That was the point of the operation. So why exactly should they care about SCO now that it's all done?
  • by grunt107 (739510) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:41AM (#9801339)
    is the following paragraph:
    'SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout, and that everything it said publicly and privately is true. But, and this should come as no surprise, it won't had over the documents BayStar wants to see. It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business".'

    Darl: Paragon of Virtue, Lifter of the Downtrodden, Scooper of the Pooper - He needs an action figure!!!!
    • If the action figure comes with the pooper-scooper, I'll buy one.
    • by Dumbush (676200)
      hmmm... while reading that, I kept thinking about the Bush administration for some reason...
    • 'SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout, and that everything it said publicly and privately is true. But, and this should come as no surprise, it won't had over the documents BayStar wants to see. It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business".'

      I love that one. Everything we said in public and in private is true -- even though they are contradictory.

      SCO
    • by Zak3056 (69287)
      It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business"

      The thing that really gets me about that one is that the two million or so shares Baystar is due represents about 1/6th of SCO's outstanding shares. So SCO is basically saying it needs to keep "proprietary data" secret from the people who own over 15% of their company. How the hell does THAT make any kind of sense?

    • by WWWWolf (2428) <wwwwolf@iki.fi> on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:43PM (#9803399) Homepage
      SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue

      Welcome Darl, I am Hawkwind, Seer of Souls. I see that which is within thee and drives thee to deeds of good or evil...
      For what path dost thou seek enlightenment?
      Honesty
      Thou art a thief and a scoundrel. Thou may not ever become an Avatar!
      Hawkwind asks: What other path seeks clarity?
      Honor
      Thou art a cad and a bounder. Thy presence is an affront. Thou art low as a slug!
      Hawkwind asks: What other path seeks clarity?
      Humility
      Thou art too proud of thy little deeds. Humility is the root of all Virtue!

      Hawkwind asks: What other path seeks clarity?
      Justice
      Thou art cruel and unjust. In time thou will suffer for thy crimes!

      Etc, etc... you get the idea.

  • by AndroidCat (229562) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:42AM (#9801348) Homepage
    The five minutes to draft their response, I can understand. What was the two hours for? Laughter, rage, a few more holes of golf?
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:42AM (#9801356) Homepage
    This still doesn't represent any real threat to SCO because it is just a maneuver by BayStar to get the terms they want. SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar, so almost certainly there will be a settlement soon. This is all just pre-resolution chest thumping. S.O.P.
    • Yes there is - a matter $30m, roughly. If Baystar get their way, they could get back their entire $50m, as opposed to the $22m that SCO are offering, as far as I can tell.
      • Yes there is - a matter $30m, roughly.

        Exactly. And this is why SCO will settle.

        Keep in mind also, SCOs propensity to drag lawsuits out. Do you think BayStar really wants to get into a 2 or three year legal hassle only to get nothing when SCO craters into the moon after bankrupsy death spiral? This is all just a dance.

    • by cdrudge (68377) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:47AM (#9801426) Homepage
      They couldn't afford to sue IBM, RedHat (ok RedHat sued them but still), Novell, AutoZone, or DC, but that didn't stop them from doing it. I would agree though that this is more of a PR move to show who's is longer.
    • by Mr2cents (323101) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:55AM (#9801517)
      I don't consider your investor threatening to sue you a healthy situation. SCO is a big old machine that's at the end of it life; everything is shaking, and soon it will just fall apart.
      • S.O.P. (Score:3, Informative)

        I don't consider your investor threatening to sue you a healthy situation.

        This is more or less standard in business. We don't hear about it most times because most cases of this nature are not high profile. It is posturing. SCO is a big old machine that's at the end of it life; everything is shaking, and soon it will just fall apart.

        And this is exaclty why the suit will never happen, BayStar knows that in the end, with a law suit they will only help bring down SCO before they get any money at all. The t

    • Funding (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ultrabot (200914)
      SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar

      Really? Just wait, I read somewhere that Microsoft is going to need some Unix(tm)(r)(patent pending) technology to replace all those open source parts of Microsoft(r) Services For Unix(r). I'm pretty sure Microsoft is not going to mind if the price is a little bit higher than the going rate.
  • ....as SCO's stock [yahoo.com] skis ever downwards.
    • Why not make some money off of SCO's woes, then? Short their stock make money and have double the entertainment value. :)
      • There are no SCOX shares available to be shorted. Even if there were any available, the price isn't high enough to make the risk worthwhile.
      • by stecoop (759508) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:59AM (#9801564) Journal
        My rules of investment which are also followed by Warren Batty (or do I follow his rules? ehh I like my wording), is to never short a stock. The most money you can make from a short stock is the current price times the number of share you buy. Meaning that as the company approaches zero, the less likely you are to make more money. See in a regular stock purchase, your highest price approaches infinity because there is no limit to how high the stock can go; therefore, your better off to buy a positive company.

        In the case of SCOX, the most you could make is $4.15 per share as of 10:38AM ET.
        • by Cecil (37810) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:24AM (#9801825) Homepage
          While I agree that shorting SCO right now, if it were possible, wouldn't be the greatest idea, the people who shorted SCO at $24 are happy.

          Both traditional investment and short selling have limits. Speaking both technically and practically there are limits to high high a stock can go. There is only so much market share available before you have to start dealing with anti-trust legislation and market saturation. Things get increasingly difficult the bigger you get. For this reason, stocks rarely go above certain values.

          Conversely, there is a lower limit to stock price for shorting a stock, $0, but that doesn't mean your gain is limited. If I decided to risk big and short SCO for a million dollars, confident that SCO will be out of business real soon now and then they do go bankrupt, I just made a million dollars. It doesn't matter if they were trading at $0.01 or $1,000,000 per share when I bought them, I still made a million dollars.

          Sometimes your strategy is good. Sometimes it is bad. There are few absolutes in investment.
          • Math (Score:3, Informative)

            by Scott Richter (776062)
            Conversely, there is a lower limit to stock price for shorting a stock, $0, but that doesn't mean your gain is limited. If I decided to risk big and short SCO for a million dollars, confident that SCO will be out of business real soon now and then they do go bankrupt, I just made a million dollars. It doesn't matter if they were trading at $0.01 or $1,000,000 per share when I bought them, I still made a million dollars.

            That's exactly what it means. Your potential gain is limited to $1,000,000. Shares of

        • Who's Warren Batty? You're not referring to Warren Beatty [imdb.com]? That would be weird, since he's famous for acting, not investing.

          There are a number of good reasons for wanting to sell a stock short.
          For one, arguing along the same simplistic lines as you did: There are far more ways of running a business into the ground than running it sucessfully. Failure is also easier to predict than success.
          I could've told you two years ago that SCO was going to go out of business. And they will, just watch.

          The more serious
  • by HBI (604924) <kparadine&gmail,com> on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:43AM (#9801362) Homepage Journal
    as an attempt to shut down the SCO fiasco before any really harmful judgements are handed down that prevent further Microsoft-funded FUD against Linux.

    Obviously there are regulatory hurdles on the way to Longhorn. Slowing Linux adoption is clearly in the best interests of Redmond, and sowing doubt through litigation is pretty much the only strategy they have left that will work.
    • by fr0dicus (641320) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:00AM (#9801577) Journal
      If it is MS behind this, why don't they just concentrate on the lack of cohesive desktop, interoperable office suite, analyst confidence, financial, business-to-business, seriously supported messaging middleware and administration costs and ease-of-use arguments? There's plenty more mileage, FUD or otherwise in all of those areas.

      I really don't think we've seen a tenth of Redmond's answer to Linux yet, simply because it's a tiny threat compared in reality to their customer base as opposed to what the average slashdot poster seems to think about it.

      This was probably just them dipping a toe in the water. Hell, they've destroyed SCO (who had an old Unix and their own version of Linux), cost IBM plenty (those lawyers have to be paid), discredited Novell (what exactly do they own?) and made a lot of people think twice. Sure fills the gap between SP2 and Longhorn.

      • This was probably just them dipping a toe in the water. Hell, they've destroyed SCO (who had an old Unix and their own version of Linux), cost IBM plenty (those lawyers have to be paid), discredited Novell (what exactly do they own?) and made a lot of people think twice.

        On the other hand, there's the risk that: 1)the GPL gets validated in court; and 2)Linux is legally declared unencumbered by patent/copyright violations. Also, OSS projects may be reevaluated by companies that were waiting for the legal

  • *gasp!* (Score:3, Funny)

    by Oxy the moron (770724) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:43AM (#9801365)
    SCO??? Going to court? Impossible! That never happens.... go buy your lottery tickets today!
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:43AM (#9801372) Homepage Journal

    It takes a big man to cry, it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.
    Jack Handey
  • SCO Confused? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheLetterPsy (792255)
    From the second article:

    SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout

    Maybe a paragon of Corporate Virtue and Transparency . . . an oxymoronic (or simply moronic) statement in itself. But most definitely that group has been anything BUT virtuous or transparent.
    • Maybe a paragon of Corporate Virtue and Transparency

      CVT eh? Funny - to me that stands for Continuously Variable Transmission. And that is a damned near perfect description of SCO's communications so far.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  • by phritz (623753) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:45AM (#9801405)
    It is not OK just to copy and paste the article text in your article submission. You can say something like 'The Register writes " ..."' but you can't just take credit for it. And come on, Hemos, can't you RTFA before you post it?
  • I can't think of one offhand, even Microsoft by implication is their enemy, (if a friend of a friend is now an enemy of your friend, they are your enemy too, no?), congrats SCO you're probably now one of the most loathed companies in America. Lower than Microsoft, lower than Diebold, lower than the Nigerian Asset Transfer consortium that always wants my money, you get the picture...
  • I see... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend (674934) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:46AM (#9801412)
    I see the vultures circling over...

    And I bet there won't be too much rotting flesh left on that carcass when they're done feeding.
  • Baystar sics lawyers on SCO. It's only a matter of time before SCO sics lawyers on Baystar.

    Please, oh, please, let there be no survivors.

  • To quote Dave Chappelle...

    OH SNAP!!

    I was kinda having a crappy day until I saw this story :)

    ~ Segfault
  • by geomon (78680) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:49AM (#9801448) Homepage Journal
    You've got to wonder how much longer they can stand this abuse [yahoo.com].

    Looking at their quarterly income and cash flow statements, one can only draw one conclusion; SCO will be out of cash in roughly three to four quarters without a significant cash injection from an interested party.

    Their stock price sucks, their product sucks, their management sucks, and they have NO customer good will. They have no prospects for income and roughly $60M in cash. At $12M+ losses per quarter, they will barely make it to the close of FY05.

    I would hate to work there.

    • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:57AM (#9801542) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to keep them going longer. Since everyone now knows about their involvement with the company (Which didn't raise FTC eyebrows?) they could probably just buy the SCO outright and keep it going until all the court cases have been resolved. That'd be another decade of relatively inexpensive FUD against their main competitor, at which time they could figure something else out. Maybe break off a couple billion dollars and infuse it into their favorite political party in return for making open source illegal. When you can afford to give away over thirty billion dollars to your shareholders, a couple billion here or there to preserve the monopoly is a drop in the bucket.
      • It is not in Microsoft's interests to buy SCO. When SCO's lawsuit crashes and burns (it will take a while but it is inevitable), SCO will become a HUGE liability. IBM, RedHat, Novell, as well as any other Linux company, could then go after Microsoft for damages and put a significant dent in their $50 billion warchest. That is why Microsoft want to keep SCO at arm's length and downplay its involvement in the scam.
    • by SyntheticTruth (17753) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:13PM (#9803051)
      From Yahoo:
      Prev Close: 4.20

      I think that is quite telling, considering the company, and probably the source of their business strategy.

  • by EvilLordSoth (770297) <EvilLordSoth@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:54AM (#9801498) Journal

    BayStar ABSOLUTELY MUST do this! Otherwise, IBM and the others will be able to get the information about the link to Microsoft (read the Halloween Memos if you don't know what I'm talking about). They ONLY way to keep that information secret (and protect Bill) is to get it wrapped up in a lawsuit with "confidential" terms and a confidentiality agreement.

    This has NOTHING to do with getting back the money they were instructed to channel to SCO.

    So while we are all sitting around laughing at SCOX Baystar is definitely pulling a fast one to COVER THEIR investor's ASS(ETS).

    • "They ONLY way to keep that information secret (and protect Bill) is to get it wrapped up in a lawsuit with "confidential" terms and a confidentiality agreement."

      Zounds, that must be the trick the bounders are pulling. I mean it was only because the Halloween documents came tagged with 'press release' that we actually saw them.

      "This has NOTHING to do with getting back the money they were instructed to channel to SCO."

      Well, there you're right. It's the difference between what SCO said they were doi
  • SCO to countersue!
  • by Götz (18854) <waschk&gmx,net> on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:55AM (#9801510) Homepage
    This article is missing the foot icon, as it was the first one today that made me laugh.
  • Short. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For all of you who were wondering when is the time to short SCO stock (that just wanted to catch a short-term rather than long-term short), this is your signal. I feel bad for some of you that have had to run it gradually, but you can't just go on geek hunches.

    SCO not only just killed themselves, but they ensured a VERY steep decline. Baystar did this just right, issuing a press release on a Thursday. It ensures a huge drop today.

    Since its founding in 1998, BayStar has never before sent a letter to a com

  • by zoid.com (311775) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:57AM (#9801527) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be great if Google went took some of that IPO money and ended this whole fiaSCO? Google is one if not the biggest Linux house there is. With SCO's stock price down it would chump change for google.

    Google... Buyout SCO and release all UNIX IP to the public!

  • Isnt it amazing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lispy (136512) on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:57AM (#9801532) Homepage
    I believe that deep in my heart I am a calm and balanced person but it is amazing how angry this whole thing makes me. It really scares me how satisfiying it is to see them get what they deserve. SCO really did a great job in getting all the worst feelings from the techcommunity.
  • myster0n writes? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goldspider (445116) <{ardrake79} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday July 26, 2004 @10:57AM (#9801543) Homepage
    "myster0n writes 'SCO's attempts to rescue its relationship with BayStar, its biggest backer, have come to naught. On Friday morning, Eastern time, SCO announced that the stock buyback deal it agreed with the unhappy investor had closed. Two hours and five minutes later, Baystar issued a statement saying that a) no it hadn't and b) we'll see you in court, matey.'"

    Nope, The Register writes.

    If you're going to plagiarize, at least try to make it a little less obvious than a cut-and-paste of the article's opening paragraph.
  • SCO's stock fell slightly on the news, ending the day at $4.20.

    An appropriate price, I think, given what they're smoking over at SCO.

  • demonstrating their amazing abilities to stick their foot in it over and over, all whilst portraying themselves as great enforcers of the american way [itmweb.com], and upholders of the capitalistic lifestyle [technewsworld.com] that we all hold so dear. I smell an oscar [oscar.com]. Maybe Darl will want to take his newfound fame and fortune to the next level, by becoming a rockstar [metrolyrics.com] too. [women.com]
  • Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jesrad (716567) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:06AM (#9801631) Journal
    I see we're now in the "SCO becomes laughing stock of the IT industry" part. In fact, I think we're about to enter the "SCO shareholders gather to file a class-action lawsuit against Darl and his clique" part.
  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:10AM (#9801669)
    According to SCO, at the root of the disagreement are BayStar's claims that there are inconsistencies between public and private statements made by the software company.

    Really given SCO's history of statements, does this come as surprise to BayStar?

    It's sorta like on Springer when a wronged boyfiend/girlfriend/spouse comes on to complain how their partner has cheated on them. It's ironic though if the guilty party says something like "Babe, how do you think we met? I was cheating on so and so with you! Babe, you knew how I was before we started dating."

    I pray that Darl doesn't wind up on Springer wearing a wife-beater. The usual pattern is that by the end of the show he's stripped down to nothing. [shudders]

  • Dogs-Fleas (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Johnny Mnemonic (176043) <mdinsmore@@@gmail...com> on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:13AM (#9801699) Homepage Journal

    If you lie down with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.
  • by Tex Bravado (91447) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:21AM (#9801788)
    Perhaps BayStar just plans to acquire SCO (and thereby its claims to Unix rights) so that they can pursue the rest of us more effectively ?
  • by Talonius (97106) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:25AM (#9801838)
    When you fight a war with sharks keeping the waters clear for you, you have to beware of when the sharks decide that you are a better meal than the scum you're letting float by.
  • by confused one (671304) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:36AM (#9801947)
    is a distant echo of a toilet flush and the water swirling around the drain...
  • Biggest backer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leereyno (32197) on Monday July 26, 2004 @11:48AM (#9802057) Homepage Journal
    Anyone who believes that Baystar is SCO's biggest backer is forgetting about a little company in Redmond.

    The things that SCO is doing are blatantly suicidal and correspond in time with activity on the part of others, such as Ken Brown. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but give me a break. I'd be willing to bet my balls that Microsoft is funding not only SCO, but also all the other groups that have all of a sudden started attacking Linux and open source in general.

    They may not be alone either. The other player that I suspect is Sun. Linux has hit them FAR harder than it has Microsoft. For the most part Microsoft has limited the ability of Windows to penetrate the server market, at least without becoming a much better product. Sun on the other hand, has directly lost market share to Linux, and not just a little bit either.

    Ever find it funny how SCO went out of their way to declare that Solaris was "ok?" This was said in multiple PR notices. This makes me very suspicious of Sun. They have a LOT more to lose than Microsoft does. Their bread and butter is the server room, not the secretary's desktop, and that is exactly where Linux is kicking butt and taking names. This isn't just a matter of Solaris vs. Linux either. Its a matter of Linux on commodity hardware vs. Solaris on fabulously expensive proprietary hardware. Sun is behind the eight-ball in both regards. When Sun wants 100k for a quad processor system when you can easily buy an far faster Opteron based quad processor system for 1/5th the price, it makes you wonder what it is that Sun is smoking and why they haven't passed the bong.

    I personally think that Sun is toast. If all they sold was an OS, then things wouldn't be so bad for them. But as it is they are stuck having to field both an OS AND the hardware it runs on. This isn't something that a struggling company can do well.
  • by Animats (122034) on Monday July 26, 2004 @12:12PM (#9802264) Homepage
    Looking at today's SCOX chart [yahoo.com], we can see an attempt to support the price at $4.00. Dropped to $3.90, and a buy comes in to bring it back up to $4. Later, dropped to $3.98, and a quick buy brought it back up to $4. Look at the chart. A clear pattern of support.

    Remember that SCOX has an announced stock buyback plan. So the support is, we have to assume, by SCO itself, spending its own money to keep the stock price up. Unsuccessfully. Support at $4 will probably be about as successful as the previous support attempts at $15, $10, and $5.

  • by XFriday (602620) on Monday July 26, 2004 @12:56PM (#9802800)
    "Julian, what the fuck is all this Starbay and stuff about? Sounds fuckin stupid to me."

    "Don't worry about it Ricky, it has to do with the Internet."

    "The what?"

    "The Internet, Ricky. You know, the Internet?"

    ...

    "Where the FUCK is Corey and Trevor? I told those fuckin idiots to be back here an hour ago. My fuckin weed plants need to be guarded and the cats have all run away. Fuckin idiots."

    "Ahh fuck, here comes Lahey. Who the FUCK is that in the car with him? That's not Randy."

    "Hello, gentlemen. My name is Darl. Apparently you are using linux here in the trailer park, and I want to talk to you about our intellectual property rights, and how they might be applicable to you."

    "What the fuck is he saying, Julian?"

    "I dunno, Ricky. Bubbles?"

    "No fuckin idea, but I don't like the looks of him."

    "Me neither, Bubs. Ricky, you have permission to do whatever you want to this sheister."

    "You fuckin heard the man, Darl. Julian said."

    WHAMMO!!

    "How's that for pintoflectual flights!!"

  • by Camel Pilot (78781) on Monday July 26, 2004 @01:19PM (#9803134) Homepage Journal
    This recent press release [thestreet.com] clearly shows SCO really loves OSS. Without they could not have a major new release of the their OS - the hypocritical bastards [sco.com] ...

    Other enhancements to the SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 update include:

    Mozilla Web browser 1.6 adds new features including tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and PDF support

    User-Level threads increases application availability

    Squid Web Proxy Cache 2.5STABLE5 with expanded authentication schemes, optimizes searching, SSL gatewaying, and more

    DVD/CD recording and enhanced printer support

    Perl 5.8.4

    Supplemental graphics, Web and X11 libraries

    Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31

    OpenSSH 3.8p1

    BIND 8.4.4

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0

Working...