SEO

Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.

As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.

Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
good news for me.

Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.

Bob

--
Bob Stockler +-+ bob@trebor.iglou.com +-+ http://members.iglou.com/trebor

In <20080216011705.GA14465@trebor.iglou.com> Bob Stockler:

[Snip...]

> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief

Sorry, no rest for the weary. I'm onto this scam 5+ years, and you're not
shutting me up, now, or actually ever. This is Usenet, remember?

OTOH, I do believe you've earned a well-deserved Darwin Award. Enjoy.

<PLONK>

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

Bob Stockler wrote:
> Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.

The SCO Group may be not dead (yet), but they are hardly anything else
than a *zombie*, and a quite pathetic one.

> As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
> I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.

Santa Cruz Operation was great. The SCO Group is a spawn of Satan. It
will be dealt with accordingly.

> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.

It will give extra time for The SCO Group to come to realize the
UnixWare kernel they put into their OpenServer 6.0 product is Novell's
intelectual property, and that as they only bought distribution rights
to such property, now they own royalties to Novell for every copy sold
of OpenServer 6.0.

Good move! Can we call this to go fishing and end up been trapped in the
very hook? Hell, yeah!

Santa Cruz Operation was paying royalties to Microsoft in the past for
many years for their use of Xenix. Now, The SCO Group, if they have any
future left, will be paying royalties to Novell for MANY years to come.

What a TOTAL screw up!!

Bob Stockler wrote:
> Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
>
> As being a user, seller


Typical salesman who believes his own lies! Good thing
you don't sell used cars.


> and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
> I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.


The official birthdate of unix was Jan 1, 1970. SCO has
been one of its bastards.


> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
> good news for me.


Looks like you read only the headlines. :-) Whatatwit!


>
> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.

You're just another scomanual thumper. Some folks just can't
help but try to prop up the underdog.

On Feb 15, 8:17 pm, Bob Stockler <b...@trebor.iglou.com> wrote:
> Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
>
> As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
> I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
>
> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
> good news for me.
>
> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will b

My guess is that somebody is just throwing away their money.

I'm not anti-SCO, but this is a company that has been stepping on its
own feet for more than two decades.

I don't think another 100 Mill is going to change that.

"foolsrushout" <666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fp6vc7$c2g$1@aioe.org...
> Bob Stockler wrote:
> > Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
> >
> > As being a user, seller
>
>
> Typical salesman who believes his own lies! Good thing
> you don't sell used cars.
>
>
> > and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
> > I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
>
>
> The official birthdate of unix was Jan 1, 1970. SCO has
> been one of its bastards.
>
>
> > Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
> > good news for me.
>
>
> Looks like you read only the headlines. :-) Whatatwit!
>
>
> >
> > Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
> > nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will be a welcome relief.
>
> You're just another scomanual thumper. Some folks just can't
> help but try to prop up the underdog.

The influx of $100M from some Saudi Arabian group to prop up SCO will have
an effect. But, no one knows yet exactly how big of a hole they have put
themselves in. They still have lots and lots of baggage (royalty payments,
counter suits, a diminishing user base, and a diminishing work force) that
has to be dealt with, and my guess has it that there is more to this
cash-cow than meets the eye.
Couple that with the possibility of two ethnically and religiously diverse
business groups hopping in bed together, hmmmm, sounds like the basis for
a real dispute over ownership could be brewing.

I'll hold my judgement and opinions for a later date. But, as long as the
SCO Group remains under the current management team, they'll be frowned upon
and viewed as a company that wouldn't and couldn't participate in an
industry unless they could totally control it.

Just my 2 cents.

JP

Tony Lawrence wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:17 pm, Bob Stockler <b...@trebor.iglou.com> wrote:
>> Recent news indicates that SCO is not dead, or even on its death bed.
>>
>> As being a user, seller and supporter of SCO products since SCO Xenix,
>> I've gotten tired of all the anti-SCO nay-sayers posting here.
>>
>> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
>> good news for me.
>>
>> Who knows how it will eventually turn out, but if it causes the Anti-SCO
>> nay-sayers to shut up for a while it will b
>
> My guess is that somebody is just throwing away their money.
>
> I'm not anti-SCO, but this is a company that has been stepping on its
> own feet for more than two decades.
>
> I don't think another 100 Mill is going to change that.

There is a market niche there: while the lack of new product from SCO, and the
absolute loathing they've earned from the developer community and the legal
burdens from their fundamentally fraudulent lawsuits, a new set of owners
might be the best way to take what few competent people are left and use them
to provide a set of maintenance services and migration utilities for the old
customers, and might make a tidy little sum of money doing so.

On Feb 16, 8:27 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a market niche there: while the lack of new product from SCO, and the
> absolute loathing they've earned from the developer community and the legal
> burdens from their fundamentally fraudulent lawsuits, a new set of owners
> might be the best way to take what few competent people are left and use them
> to provide a set of maintenance services and migration utilities for the old
> customers, and might make a tidy little sum of money doing so.

Given that (a) the court's ruled that Novell holds all the copyrights
(b) the contract reverts everything to Novell anyway on the event of
Santa Cruz or its successors going bankrupt (which Novell was
apparently concerned with at the time) and (c) Novell has committed
itself to Linux, my guess would be that Novell will wait for the dust
to settle, pick up their pieces, and provide just the sort of
maintenance and migration consultancy you describe.

The proposed cash infusion wouldn't even pay the interest on the
potential damages from the IBM counter-suit. And if Novell has taken
back their codebase, it's questionable what any SCOX remnants would be
able to offer to customers other than continued uncertainty.

On Feb 15, 6:17 pm, Bob Stockler <b...@trebor.iglou.com> wrote:
> Maybe the recent news about SCO will shut them up, maybe not. But it's
> good news for me.

Are you talking about the illusory $100M? The one Maureen O'Gara is so
enamored with? You know, the big shiny white knight that is going to
save SCOX from the evil communist terrorists?

What part of "Everything SCOX touches is scam" did you miss?

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCOGBK-414.pdf

quote:

However, for that right to be exercised and for the assignment and
delegation to occur, the exerciser / assignor / delegator must exist.
Also, the proposed order (docket #346-4) would create an entitlement
to compensation for this apparently non-existing entity.

If no Delaware LLC by the name "Stephen Norris Capital Partners, LLC"
existed on February 13, then please file, at least 25 days before the
hearing, an amended MOU that has been executed by an accurately
identified non-debtor party that is some existing legal person, e.g.,
the Florida LLC (#L07000078273); the Delaware limited partnership
(#4052355); some newly-formed Delaware LLC (for which a certificate of
formation has been filed before the date of execution of the amended
MOU); or some Stephen L. Norris (presumably the one admitted to the
D.C. Bar on June 1, 1977) in his capacity as an individual.