Read this on Slashdot, and thought this guy made a lot of great
points. All the "Boyd"s trying to screw the last cent out of their
victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers may find it useful to digest this:

Begin paste:---

What Does Darl Get Out Of It?

Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable
quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up
the fiasco for extra quarter or two to cash out.

At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO -- if there is
any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v.
Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much
Darl loves to sue his employers.

Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it
to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.

In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next
two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't
matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows
profits each quarter.

He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not
after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what
happens that far down the line.

He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the
following quarter. He's got two profitable quarters in a row now,
though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting
personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.

If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative
accounting over the next two quarters. Personally, I think that asset
listed as "Goodwill" is just the start of SCO's attempts at creative
accounting. Or maybe more money from MS. MS, according to the latest
10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded
licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.

Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's
FUD machine within the next two-three quarters. If he sounds
irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any
more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining
up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in
the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court
decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay,
delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, FyRE wrote:
> Read this on Slashdot, and thought this guy made a lot of great
> points. All the "Boyd"s trying to screw the last cent out of their
> victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers may find it useful to digest this:

Only 10% of my business is from SCO related stuff. So you are really lost
on this. I do make sure my customers do know what is going on. I have
them read the major trade and reliable sources. Not the Slashdot stuff
because I have found it to be a waste of time.

> Begin paste:---
>
> What Does Darl Get Out Of It?
>
> Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable
> quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up
> the fiasco for extra quarter or two to cash out.
>
> At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO -- if there is
> any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v.
> Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much
> Darl loves to sue his employers.
>
> Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it
> to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
>
> In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next
> two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't
> matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows
> profits each quarter.
>
> He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not
> after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what
> happens that far down the line.
>
> He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the
> following quarter. He's got two profitable quarters in a row now,
> though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting
> personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.
>
> If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative
> accounting over the next two quarters. Personally, I think that asset
> listed as "Goodwill" is just the start of SCO's attempts at creative
> accounting. Or maybe more money from MS. MS, according to the latest
> 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded
> licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.
>
> Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's
> FUD machine within the next two-three quarters. If he sounds
> irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any
> more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining
> up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in
> the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court
> decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay,
> delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.


I do not know and I do not care to research this right now, but this may
be good information. I have to much other things to do.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

FyRE wrote:

> What Does Darl Get Out Of It?

Once one's sussed everything and asked oneself "why?" and gawped at
McBride's temerity (read up on SCO's ridiculous website and license
conditions, seen what happened to Dupaco in Holland, asked oneself what
the Linux kernel people will say and do, etc.), one will have come to
the Slashdot conclusion long ago. The subject isn't worth discussing any
longer.

What I've found such a pity, is that so many talented people have
already been been and still will be left floundering. In the not too
distant future, Microsoft's OS and application divisions will find
itself in the same position - read "FLOSS", the writing's already on the
wall - and I wonder what will happen then. Gates and Balmer have already
made their respective piles.

--Tonni

--
Tony Earnshaw

Millom kaksar eg litet kann trivast, millom jamningar helst er eg nøgd

http://www.billy.demon.nl
Mail: billy@billy.demon.nl

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:

> FyRE wrote:
>
> > What Does Darl Get Out Of It?
>
> Once one's sussed everything and asked oneself "why?" and gawped at
> McBride's temerity (read up on SCO's ridiculous website and license
> conditions, seen what happened to Dupaco in Holland, asked oneself what
> the Linux kernel people will say and do, etc.), one will have come to
> the Slashdot conclusion long ago. The subject isn't worth discussing any
> longer.

What's more, SGI has now published an analysis of SysV code vs. Linux.
Conclusion: there are only insignificant snippets that are probably there
legally, but in any case not enough to sustain a copyright violation case.

http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt

It's interesting to see SGI publishing this: they have full access to the
SysV code and are hence well placed to do such an analysis.

The question is: what's going to be left of SCO after RedHat has finished
with them? Will there be anything left to defend against IBM's
counterclaims?

So, those of you who read this newsgroup and support installations of
SCO's software: what are you advising your customers? Are you telling them
about the risk that they may be using an OS that is not supported in the
near future?

>
> The question is: what's going to be left of SCO after RedHat has finished
> with them? Will there be anything left to defend against IBM's
> counterclaims?
>
> So, those of you who read this newsgroup and support installations of
> SCO's software: what are you advising your customers? Are you telling them
> about the risk that they may be using an OS that is not supported in the
> near future?
>

A more close to home point , what happens if a client sues a reseller
claiming we knew SCO as a company is in trouble.
and continued to assure them that all was well. OpenServer and UnixWare
are tough sells now to existing clients , new
ones are out of the question. There is almost no upside to selling SCO
now.

Rob

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310011445170.6442-100000@c941211-a>,
Joe Dunning <joedunning*NOSPAM*1234@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> FyRE wrote:
>>
>> > What Does Darl Get Out Of It?
>>
>> Once one's sussed everything and asked oneself "why?" and gawped at
>> McBride's temerity (read up on SCO's ridiculous website and license
>> conditions, seen what happened to Dupaco in Holland, asked oneself what
>> the Linux kernel people will say and do, etc.), one will have come to
>> the Slashdot conclusion long ago. The subject isn't worth discussing any
>> longer.
>
>What's more, SGI has now published an analysis of SysV code vs. Linux.
>Conclusion: there are only insignificant snippets that are probably there
>legally, but in any case not enough to sustain a copyright violation case.
>
>http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt

>It's interesting to see SGI publishing this: they have full access to the
>SysV code and are hence well placed to do such an analysis.

And today SCO announced they are terminating SGI's license - and
SGI says they have a permanent license.

This is getting out of hand.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:HM50Lr.uD3@wjv.com...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310011445170.6442-100000@c941211-a>,
> Joe Dunning <joedunning*NOSPAM*1234@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> >> FyRE wrote:
> >>
> >> > What Does Darl Get Out Of It?
> >>
> >> Once one's sussed everything and asked oneself "why?" and gawped at
> >> McBride's temerity (read up on SCO's ridiculous website and license
> >> conditions, seen what happened to Dupaco in Holland, asked oneself what
> >> the Linux kernel people will say and do, etc.), one will have come to
> >> the Slashdot conclusion long ago. The subject isn't worth discussing
any
> >> longer.
> >
> >What's more, SGI has now published an analysis of SysV code vs. Linux.
> >Conclusion: there are only insignificant snippets that are probably there
> >legally, but in any case not enough to sustain a copyright violation
case.
> >
> >http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt
>
> >It's interesting to see SGI publishing this: they have full access to the
> >SysV code and are hence well placed to do such an analysis.
>
> And today SCO announced they are terminating SGI's license - and
> SGI says they have a permanent license.
>
> This is getting out of hand.

I am wondering if we, as certified resellers, have any possible
legal recourse to what Dale is doing?

We sell multiple OS's and computer hardware like many others, but
I was wondering if resellers who make there ENTIRE living with
SCO products has the ability to sue. I figure in this day and age,
a lawyer would try to create a class action lawsuite against SCO
on behalf of the resellers.

For all I know someone may have already contacted a lawyer,
started a petition or something to make SCO somehow partially
responsible for a SCO resellers demise.

moncho

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003, moncho wrote:
.....
>I am wondering if we, as certified resellers, have any possible
>legal recourse to what Dale is doing?
>
>We sell multiple OS's and computer hardware like many others, but
>I was wondering if resellers who make there ENTIRE living with
>SCO products has the ability to sue. I figure in this day and age,
>a lawyer would try to create a class action lawsuite against SCO
>on behalf of the resellers.

IANAL -- I wouldn't stoop that low.

In the U.S. today, anybody can sue for anything without regard for common
sense, reason, etc. -- all they need is the money to pay the land sharks.
SCO is hardly a candidate for a big legal jackpot, and probably won't be
around long enough to pay off in any case. I find it hard to imagine any
reseller dumb enough to be totally dependant on sales of SCO products
having the money to interest a lawyer in bringing suit against SCO when
there's little or no chance of winning anything significant.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/

``The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.''
Ayn Rand