As I've written before, people still posting on this list (I've
mentioned names in a previous posting) helped me to learn Unix. When I
needed it. Yes, Boyd Linn was amongst them. Bela was my (and many
others') SCO god, and the others were up with him. You're all of you
still my tops, Bills, Tonys, Boyds, Belas, JPRs, Jeffs, Johns - all of you..

I'd like to see this list go parallel. Let's face it, there's nothing
left of SCO but an organization out to make a fast buck on the market,
with a Microsoft-founded backer. There is not, and will not be, any
software worth speaking of emanating from SCO in the future. The present
Open Server is dead as a doornail and there is no future for UnixWare.
All that UnixWare does, Linux 2.4 can do and 2.6 will do better.

I'd like to see people with hardware driver, daemon, utility etc.
problems being given help converting to other OSs ("you could do it like
this with ..."). Obviously Linux is a contender, but the different BSD
flavors are up there too. As is HP-UX, True64, MACOSX and AIX. Solaris
will soon be no more, and alas for us all, Sun with it.

I use any sort of Unix for what I can do with it. My main needs are
utilities: terminal server, LDAP, MTAs/MDAs, DNS, web servers and that
sort of thing. I am and will stay a sysadmin.

I came to SCO after Novell's UnixWare 1.0, which I installed and broke a
thousand times after many evenings' installs from QIC 150MB tapes.
OpenServer 5.0.0 came on a CD, much easier. SCO and the Michels were my
idols and I became sysadmin for the main SCO distributor in Holland.
Many of my colleagues were SCO instructors, master ACEs and taught me
masses, as did all of /you/. I *hate* to see things going the way they
are, but that's the way of the world. Now I'd like to see you all
helping others out of the mess that SCO has got them into.

For those who ask: "will SCO look after the resellers?" the answer is
"no". There is no SCO any more, as we knew it. Just a con outfit, out to
make a killing before it gets swallowed up.

--Tonni


--
Tony Earnshaw

Once the camel's head has entered your tent,
it's very difficult to stop the rest of the
animal from following it

http://www.billy.demon.nl
Mail: billy-at-billy.demon.nl

Tony Earnshaw wrote:

> As I've written before, people still posting on this list (I've
> mentioned names in a previous posting) helped me to learn Unix. When I
> needed it. Yes, Boyd Linn was amongst them. Bela was my (and many
> others') SCO god, and the others were up with him. You're all of you
> still my tops, Bills, Tonys, Boyds, Belas, JPRs, Jeffs, Johns - all of you..
>
> I'd like to see this list go parallel. Let's face it, there's nothing
> left of SCO but an organization out to make a fast buck on the market,
> with a Microsoft-founded backer. There is not, and will not be, any
> software worth speaking of emanating from SCO in the future. The present
> Open Server is dead as a doornail and there is no future for UnixWare.

This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.

The "doornail" of which you speak is still selling on the order of 40
million dollars a year. There are a lot of products that could only
wish to be "dead" like that.

>Bela<

On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <belal@sco.com> wrote:

>Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> As I've written before, people still posting on this list (I've
>> mentioned names in a previous posting) helped me to learn Unix. When I
>> needed it. Yes, Boyd Linn was amongst them. Bela was my (and many
>> others') SCO god, and the others were up with him. You're all of you
>> still my tops, Bills, Tonys, Boyds, Belas, JPRs, Jeffs, Johns - all of you..
>>
>> I'd like to see this list go parallel. Let's face it, there's nothing
>> left of SCO but an organization out to make a fast buck on the market,
>> with a Microsoft-founded backer. There is not, and will not be, any
>> software worth speaking of emanating from SCO in the future. The present
>> Open Server is dead as a doornail and there is no future for UnixWare.
>
>This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
>I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
>relevant to the market.

So you were the guy who had the job of rebooting the servers during
the recent DDOS attack huh?

> It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
>SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
>employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
>efforts.

So that's 280 lawyers and 10 greedy execs then.

>SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
>corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.

The problem is Bela, you work for the most despised software company
on Earth (congrats on beating Microsoft to #1, BTW!) I honestly know
nothing of this "SCOSource", since what noice it makes is drowned out
by the lies, threats and FUD your scumbag employers are screaming
every single day to pump the stock price.

In any case, even if this "SCOSource" were the best offering in the
world, do you honestly think anyone would touch it with t bargepole?
Not likely is it? Unfortunately your company have made you lepers - I
sure as hell wouldn't want a SCO employee joining any OpenSource
effort I was involved with - too much chance of them trying to steal
the code for themselves.

>The "doornail" of which you speak is still selling on the order of 40
>million dollars a year. There are a lot of products that could only
>wish to be "dead" like that.

Uhu, from what I'd read, SCO only managed a slim profit due to the
"licenses" Microsoft and Sun acquired, and continue paying for... some
might think they're bankrolling the court case actually.

SCO, as a software company *is* dead. I feel sorry for you if you are
actually an honest software engineer. Hopefully one day you'll find a
job at a respectable company - it'll be good for your self esteme.

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

On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <belal@sco.com> wrote:
>
>This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
>I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
>relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
>SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
>employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
>efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
>corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.

Bela,
Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
few SCOSource employees.

Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
open source and the GPL are offensive?

But frankly, if you really think there is a future at SCO then I think
you must be incredibly naiive.

Your assertion that the company is more than a a "nothing but" needs to
be challenged: do you really think that Sun and Microsoft needed those
licenses? Where would SCO be without the money it received for them?

Joe Dunning wrote:

> Your assertion that the company is more than a a "nothing but" needs to
> be challenged: do you really think that Sun and Microsoft needed those
> licenses? Where would SCO be without the money it received for them?

I don't know, and probably about the same. The company would have less
cash, but would still be above water. I don't know any more about what
it was that MS and Sun bought than you do; all I've seen are the same
press releases (and rumors and speculation) that you have.

>Bela<

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Joe Dunning wrote:
>On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <belal@sco.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
>>I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
>>relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
>>SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
>>employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
>>efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
>>corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.
>
>Bela,
>Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
>you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
>few SCOSource employees.
>
>Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
>from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
>the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
>open source and the GPL are offensive?

I've known Bela for the better part of 20 years, and it's obvious that you
don't have a clue. I can't speak for him (and I doubt that Bela would
stoop to your level to reply). He has been one of the truly dedicated and
competent people in Santa Cruz for as long as I can remember (and I missed
perhaps two of the SCO Forum meetings while there were held in Santa Cruz).
One factor in his staying may well be that he has a family to feed, a
mortgage to pay, and a job -- which isn't all that easy to come by in
today's economy.

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/

Democracy, n.:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass
meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion,
prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
-- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932),
since withdrawn.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:36:07 GMT, Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:

>I've known Bela for the better part of 20 years, and it's obvious that you
>don't have a clue. I can't speak for him (and I doubt that Bela would
>stoop to your level to reply). He has been one of the truly dedicated and
>competent people in Santa Cruz for as long as I can remember (and I missed
>perhaps two of the SCO Forum meetings while there were held in Santa Cruz).
>One factor in his staying may well be that he has a family to feed, a
>mortgage to pay, and a job -- which isn't all that easy to come by in
>today's economy.
>

Well, perhaps my posting was more than a little rude and made suggestions
that do not apply to Bela. That said, in general:

1. Many ordinary SCO employees (not just the execs) have been able to sell
shares in SCO at prices inflated by SCO's FUD. I don't know if Bela is one
of those.

2. Jobs are tight. Certainly, I would not advocate that SCO employees
immediately resign. Nor would I expect any employees to post that they
would leave if they could.

3. Bela sought to portray SCO as a company with many employees supporting
a legitimate product. Again, I don't expect him to post anything
otherwise, but silence is also an option. If he chooses to publically
defend SCO as a company, he must expect people to comment on it and
question his role.

Many people are very angry with SCO's unsustantiated allegations regarding
Linux. One can support SCO, oppose them, remain neutral or remain silent.

Joe Dunning wrote:

> 3. Bela sought to portray SCO as a company with many employees supporting
> a legitimate product. Again, I don't expect him to post anything
> otherwise, but silence is also an option. If he chooses to publically
> defend SCO as a company, he must expect people to comment on it and
> question his role.

I merely stated the truth. The people involved with SCOSource -- those
licensing activities of the company which have been getting so much
press attention -- are a tiny subgroup of the company. Most of the
employees are running various aspects of the Unix software business of
SCO -- from developing the products to support, marketing, sales, OEM
relationships, administration, shipping, maintaining internal databases,
training, maintaining employee benefits, cleaning out the wastebaskets,
whatever functions a company of 300-some employees normally has. Those
who repeatedly claim that SCO is "nothing but a shell" are just wrong.

And as has always been the case, I post under my own initiative, not as
any sort of company spokesperson or representative.

>Bela<

Joe Dunning wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <belal@sco.com> wrote:
>
>>This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and
>>I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and
>>relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that
>>SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300
>>employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource"
>>efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny
>>corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive.
>
>
> Bela,
> Would it be correct to assume that you have stock options? If so, and
> you have sold any stock, then you are benefiting from the actions of those
> few SCOSource employees.
>
> Why should people not revile you (as you may be a beneficiary of the FUD
> from SCOSource) as much as SCO's execs? Perhaps those people who support
> the concept of open source might think that profits made from attacks on
> open source and the GPL are offensive?
>
> But frankly, if you really think there is a future at SCO then I think
> you must be incredibly naiive.
>
> Your assertion that the company is more than a a "nothing but" needs to
> be challenged: do you really think that Sun and Microsoft needed those
> licenses? Where would SCO be without the money it received for them?
>

Joe,

The issue here is not whether SCO management broke a few rules or took a
few liberties with the Linux community; they did. But you can't hold a
whole company responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted
individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole commercial
software system? And if the whole commercial software system is guilty,
then isn't this an indictment of our economic institutions in general?
I put it to you, Joe! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American
society? Well, you can do what you want to SCO, but we're not going to
sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!
Gentlemen!

Steve Lancour

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:14:50 -0400, Steve Lancour <stevel@lancour.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Joe,
>
>The issue here is not whether SCO management broke a few rules or took a
>few liberties with the Linux community; they did. But you can't hold a
>whole company responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted
>individuals.

One can hold the company responsible for the actions of its executive
management -- if those actions are done in the name of the company.

However, one cannot hold each employee responsible, if they are not
personally involved in the actions.