Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UnXis Group To Acquire SCO

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

Unix 131

Evil-G writes "In an email on Friday, SCO informed its partners that UnXis Inc. was chosen as the successful bidder for SCO's Unix software business on 26 January. The slightly convoluted phrasing is probably due to SCO's current reorganization under Chapter 11. On 16 February, the transaction is to be submitted for approval to the bankruptcy court where SCO's case is pending."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SCO has a software business? (3, Insightful)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115106)

I thought they were just patent trolls.

Re:SCO has a software business? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115140)

That's because you are an ignorant cunt. They owned unix and linux you know.

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115162)

They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?

Re:SCO has a software business? (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115310)

They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?

No, Darl McBride is just posting on /. again.

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115880)

Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117584)

Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL

Before you get voted up, that is the whole point of having a limited company. I believe you call it something else in the US but the general idea's the same - the liability (ie. the assets that can be taken to pay the debts) is limited to what the company owns. The logic is that it encourages businesses because a man is much more likely to take risks if he's not going to lose all his assets if it all goes to pot.

Darl McBride owns his house. But it's not Darl McBride that's in financial trouble, it's his company. That Darl McBride may wind up in financial trouble at a later date as a direct result of this (eg. he wins up jobless) is neither here nor there as far as the company being in bankruptcy is concerned.

Re:SCO has a software business? (5, Informative)

Insanity Defense (1232008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115372)

That's because you are an ignorant cunt. They owned unix and linux you know.

They claimed that Linux has substantial amounts of Unix in it which gave them "control" of Linux in their fantasy world. The problems with this were threefold. 1/ that they never proved the presence of Unix code in Linux and 2/ They have repeatedly been ruled in court not to own the required copyrights to back up those claims 3/ The moment the claimed code was identified it would begin to be removed. The legal owner of those copyrights says Linux doesn't violate them.

So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.

Re:SCO has a software business? (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117592)

So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.

Can't think why you'd want the Unixware and Openserver business. Unless you were getting it stupidly cheap and were going to use it to convert the few remaining Unixware/OpenServer customers to Linux (and bill them handsomely for the privilege).

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115412)

claiming to own linux would be patent trolling

Re:SCO has a software business? (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116110)

No. Not patent trolling. Microsoft has made those claims; SCO asserted it owned the copyrights behind code in Linux, and other insane theories of ownership.

Ballmer claimed 140+ patents over what the Linux kernel does... along with GNU utilities, the number could be in the thousands-- and in all probability, a math major's way of holding on to his goose that lays the golden eggs called Windows. In this way, Microsoft is patent trolling.... along with buying certain components of Novell's patent intellectual property-- if they get away with it.

SCO is likely to get slapped down by the court; it's been done before, specifically with this purchaser. Who even knew it was up for auction?

Re:SCO has a software business? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115456)

One of the mods on this was "funny" which after this long, should stick.

If there is anything in IT to point and laugh at, it's SCO and their can't-shoot-straight lying weasels of a board of directors.

Hey Darl, how did that foreclosure go?

    Vestus ID: #101388

Address 1799 VINTAGE OAK LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 (Salt Lake)
Status Click here for more foreclosure information!
Sale Date Click here for more foreclosure information!
Legal LOT 19, TALL OAKS PH 4 PUD. 6198-1134 6219-2723 76...

General Details Trustee RECONTRUST CO NA
TS # 10-0052058
NTS # 10937925
Foreclosure Location , , Utah
Sale Date 1/1/2000 Grantor Unknown
Mailing Address 1799 VINTAGE OAK LN
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 Borrower(s) MCBRIDE DARL C & ANDREA K Last Sale
Sold Price $771,400.00

Step 1. Buy house you can barely afford.
Step 2. Run a company into the ground.
Step 3. Get FIRED
Step 4. Lose house
??????
NO PROFIT

*ahahahahahahhaahha*

You thought EV1 was a sign of things to come and that people would fold at the sight of your brother Kevin. It wasn't. You should have quit while you were ahead after seeing the outrage at EV1 and the *army* of pissed off Unix heads volunteering information to IBM to smite thee on the head with crates of documentation.

Speaking of which, how do you feel about your brother Kevin enabling your stupidity instead of looking out for your best interests?

--
Boyle M. Owl

Re:SCO has a software business? (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115790)

A few years ago, UnixWare and OpenServer actually had pretty impressive marketshare. SCO's increasing insanity, and total neglect of those products after ~2006, caused almost all of their customers to jump ship. It's sad, really... those weren't bad operating systems at all.

Re:SCO has a software business? (3, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117618)

The rot set in long before then. IIRC this started to blow up circa 2002, and by mid-2003 I was meeting people who'd never even used Unix professionally and had independently reached the conclusion that SCO were doing some very odd things.

IMV suing your customers is generally considered to be a Very Bad Idea. Suing your customers and then announcing this fact proudly to the press is... well, it's mind-boggling. Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone running a business would authorise a press release which essentially said "We're suing our customers". The only rational explanation is that there was something else - unrelated to SCOs continued business as an OS vendor - that was pushing Darl to do this.

I generally shy away from conspiracy theories because they almost inevitably end up with some absurdly convoluted idea that includes Elvis still being alive and in cahoots with Dracula - but it's really hard to avoid here.

Re:SCO has a software business? (3, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115928)

Slight pedancy... they were copyright trolls. Nothing really to do with patents (if they were squabbling over patents, they might have had half a chance).

But yeah - they (as sibling pointed out) used to have some halfway decent products. I think it was around the time they sued a couple of their biggest customers (Chrysler and AutoZone) that their other customers began phasing out (with extreme prejudice) UnixWare, OpenLinux/OpenServer, and damned near everything else that SCO owned and/or sold.

By 2006 or so, about the only folks left giving any money to SCO was Microsoft (by proxy, and directly) and I think Sun Microsystems (licensing SysV bits for Solaris), though I think Sun did that last back in 2004 and pretty much stopped after that.

Re:SCO has a software business? (3, Insightful)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116260)

I think you will find that there is still a large installed base of SCO products in the various vertical markets. It's hard to change that sometimes.

None of that, of course, means that anyone is still paying for support...

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117708)

Agreed. It's going to take some time as software tends to have inertia. Just ask anyone hooked on IE6.

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116726)

Yes. Unix was awesome. Yes, they did take Microsoft's money and make a hash of it. No, this didn't impede progress at all because we had already worked around the intellectual property issues of Unix with Linux. A swing and a miss for the 'softies. Nice try, come again in 2015.

Re:SCO has a software business? (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117172)

You know what I find hilarious? The fact that Linux guys as a group are fricking obsessed with getting "the big bad MSFT" and completely missing the real enemy about to seriously hurt them. It reminds me of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs was completely obsessed over IBM and Gates quietly snuck in and stomped his ass. It is like the sheep laughing at the old toothless tiger while leaning up against his bestest buddy the BB Wolf.

Who is the hidden enemy you might ask? :Let me put it this way: Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is? I'll tell you, because thanks to "the TiVo trick" GPL V2 is about as worthless as can be. Hell you might as well release it all as BSD, because that is what's gonna happen anyway. That is why RMS had to come up with GPL V3 in the first place, because thanks to the TiVo trick the four freedoms mean squat as long as they stick with GPL V2, and Google hasn't touched a single drop of GPL V3.

So you might want to be looking closer at who is guarding the henhouse instead of caring about the old grudges. MSFT is the past, sure they'll keep the desktop and office but just like the mainframe was once the center of computing so too will the office PC end up with a niche that frankly doesn't really grow. PCs have gotten "good enough" for the vast majority and people don't just upgrade everytime MSFT does a new OS anymore. They are the past and mobile is the future and if you don't watch it Linux will end up winning the battle but losing the war. After all what good is Linux being everywhere if there is no more freedom than any proprietary OS thanks to the corps simply using GPL V2 and the TiVo trick?

As for TFA, just let them fricking die already. Hell it isn't even any fun making fun of them anymore, McBride has lost everything and the company is a corpse. It's like going to laugh at your asshole neighbor for old times sake now that he is sleeping in his car by the 7/11. Sure McBride was a douche and the company went from being an actual company with actual products (I kinda liked DR-DOS back in the day myself) to yet another worthless troll,but its over. Now more drama, no more McBride crazy talk, the fat lady is down the street having a sandwich. What's next /. gonna have an article when they sell the office furniture?

Re:SCO has a software business? (3, Informative)

kwark (512736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117446)

"Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is?"

Because it's not (any version of) GPL. Except the kernel it runs on (which is GPLv2), it is mostly Apache.:
"The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org. "
source: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html [android.com]

Re:SCO has a software business? (2)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116404)

I thought they were just patent trolls.

They sold servers and software for years before becoming patent trolls. They were once an IT company and some of their stuff is still around.

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117652)

Not really, the old SCO became Tarantella and sold the name to the Caldera. Finally Tarantella got bought by Sun, now a part of Oracle. What a mess.

Re:SCO has a software business? (1)

Vryl (31994) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117662)

Caldera or the real Santa Cruz?

SCO Group is not SCO, it is Caldera.

Re:SCO has a software business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35116626)

I didn't know SCO has any notable patents at all?

Not so fast (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115114)

Nice try Darl!

Re:Not so fast (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116822)

You are actually right it may well be Darl and this is unlikely to happen. If the submitter had read the Groklaw article on the subject [groklaw.net] before submitting he'd know that this is the same company which tried to buy SCO's UNIX rights before and was rejected by the court for not being serious. It's quite likely that this is some strange front for one of the SCO people and it's also likely that the court will reject this kind offer once again.

So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (4, Informative)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115134)

Wow looks like all that is left of SCO are lawsuits, debt and a pending appeal. You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix. My guess is they will do anything in their power to distance themselves from the SCO name.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115322)

You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix.

Maybe because they have a 3-letter domain name? Probably their most valuable asset ;-)

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116180)

hmm you may be on to something with that....3 letter domains are awfully hard to come by.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116394)

Don't forget 2-letter ones like HP [hp.com] . Too bad that they discontinued the HP15C. :(

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116736)

No, they have a netblock. That may be worth more than the rest of the company in two weeks.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (4, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115432)

Because they do still have customers who want/need support, updates (at least enough to keep it running on new hardware as their old hardware dies) licenses etc. That buisness is clearly worth something. How much is debatable but it's almost certainly not zero.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (2)

fucket (1256188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115512)

From your description, it sounds like it could be worth less than zero.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115772)

No, most customers stuck with it now use virtualization. It works well unde VMWare: there is simply no reason to buy any particular hardware for OpenServer when you can run an emulation environment that exceeds the resources OpenServer was designed to run under.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (4, Interesting)

jnelson4765 (845296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115984)

I'm in that situation - we've got a proprietary point of sale system that a lot of our customers run, that was written for SCO OpenServer. To move to Linux would cost $7,000 - $15,000 in license fees for the license transfer, so they're staying on SCO. An SCO OpenServer 6 license is a lot cheaper than the Thoroughbred software stack it's written in.

It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities. I really can't complain about its stability either - that damn things just keep running, and the most we have to do is replace tape drives and fans every once in a blue moon...

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116424)

The problem comes when IRS or your corresponding tax collection organization for your country decides that the system needs a certain feature.

Here in Sweden you must have a certified cash register [skatteverket.se] these days that frequently sends information about your sales to the tax authorities. All to try to trap the companies evading taxes - often restaurants.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116952)

It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities.

We have a few going as well running SCADA systems. It is more reliable than the field instruments that it reads from. The problem is that the entire system is just arsebackwards. Such as setting the date to our local timezone +10GMT. Because GMT-10 is of course the way you expect to write GMT+10 right? Anyone else knows a UNIX system which thinks the world turns in the opposite direction?

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

TAZ6416 (584004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117442)

Pizza Hut in Northern Ireland, and probably in the rest of the UK used SCO based cash registers about a year or two ago, don't know if they still do. I saw one booting up when I was in getting a coffee when a Pizza Hut was just opening for business that day. And my Vet uses a SCO system that runs off an old 486 in the reception and has WYSE terminals in each of the consulting rooms.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35116194)

True. Even the fact that it is -or was- a public company has value, on the order of a few hundred $K - some private company that wants to become public without going through the IPO can save a bunch of money by a 'reverse buyout' - they get themselves 'bought' by the defunct public company, change the name, and they're off and running as a new company.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (3, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116268)

I know of a large SCO customer who is running OpenServer 1.6 in a VM rather than pay for upgrading the thousands of systems to a version that can support modern hardware like sat a and USB.

Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115580)

"considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix."

I just heard there is a company just like SCO out there, it's called UnXis. It's SCO's new name.

All of this has happened before... (3, Insightful)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115142)

And will happen again.

They tried once before and the judge blew their ship out of the water.
What makes their chances any better this time?

Re:All of this has happened before... (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116436)

A different judge - one that can be bribed, but it may only take one that doesn't understand the concept of Open Source.

Don't forget that cases like these are executed by lawyers and they can be extremely sticky and slippery at the same time if they can sniff out a huge pile of money. They don't need to win the case to get the money - just get paid by the hour. A long case with a "customer" with little sense and deep pockets attracts lawyers like a pile of fresh cow dung attracts flies.

Re:All of this has happened before... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117038)

Doing it right.
The judges decided that SCO didn't own all of SVR4, which is true (but neither does Novell*,). It was never proven that SVR4 code (or derivative SVR4 code) didn't make its way into Linux.

SCO does however, legitimately own the copyrights associated with XENIX (which they bought from Microsoft), which includes the portions of SVR4 relating to x86 and a fair chunk of the driver model. Keep in mind that the SCO lawsuits at no point proved that Linux contains no derivative code from SVR4 - only that SCO didn't own the IP they were claiming to own (and were suing over).

* = Novell owns AT&T's portion of the copyrights via the purchase of USL. Oraclw owns Sun's equally large share of Unix copyrights (as SVR4 was a joint AT&T/Sun initiative), and the rest is split between SCO and whoever owns the BSDi copyrights (as in the BSD developed at Berkeley), as SVR4 also included the best parts of Xenix and BSD.

Keeping in mind, once again that the SCO lawsuits never proved that no SVR4 derived code made its way into Linux (it never got that far), nothing stops someone from buying the copyrights and trying again (if they believe that there really is derivative code in there), while focusing solely on the portions of IP which were legitimately owned by SCO.

Note that I singled out Linux simply because there's nothing else to potentially litigate over:
- Microsoft acquired a license from SCO for SFU and SUA.
- Sun acquired a license from SCO for Solaris_x86.
- The lawsuit in the '90s has established that BSD contains no SVR4 derived code (other than the BSD code contained in SVR4).
- Nobody else who deals in Unix offers Unix for x86.

Re:All of this has happened before... (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117676)

All of this reminds me, has anyone seen the Other Novell OS lately, I mean, Netware? Last time I've seen a Netware server was at least 10 years ago!

Re:All of this has happened before... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117392)

It's not a question of better chances, just that eventually they'll be able to slip by.

Re:All of this has happened before... (1)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117780)

> And will happen again.

SCO is bankrupt?

Angels did it.

Service Contracts (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115156)

About the only thing of value would be the service contracts, I think. Certainly no can be interested in SCO "technology" who is not already using it.

Re:Service Contracts (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115272)

If they could be peeled off with sufficient creativity, some of the SCO lawsuits might still have value as a high-risk/high-reward vehicle. I'd hate to see the zombie shamble on; but if you could keep the ongoing legal costs down, you could probably find investors willing to take a chance in exchange for the slight odds of a major payoff...

Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115172)

Can anybody shed any light on just who "UnXis Inc." actually is? What is going on here?

Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (2)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115218)

Apparently you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1882896&cid=34339448 [slashdot.org]

Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117396)

Huh?

You link to a post of yourself asking a similar answer, and getting a good reply. How does that match up with "you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here"?

Or are you crying about the troll who also replied to you? If so, get off the Internet, since you obviously cannot handle it.

Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (4, Informative)

happymellon (927696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117794)

Back in 2009 Unxis and SCO seemed to be the same company.

http://techrights.org/2009/07/14/sco-and-unxis/ [techrights.org]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090711015440158 [groklaw.net]

http://www.unxis.ca/ [unxis.ca]
http://www.unxis.co.uk/ [unxis.co.uk]
http://www.unxis.com/ [unxis.com]

So I would say it all seems like a scam to avoid having to do anything legal.

UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (5, Interesting)

Aryeh Goretsky (129230) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115178)

Hello, Groklaw seems to imply a relationship between the two: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090711015440158 [groklaw.net] Regards, Aryeh Goretsky

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115194)

Can anyone show me a picture of the person who runs Groklaw?

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115394)

Dunno - let's see yours first. Hypocrisy explosion!

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115536)

How is it relevant?

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115632)

It is revelvent because a lot of people think that GL is a front for IBM. The same IBM that makes about 1 billion per year from patent licensing. The very same IBM who just loves to sue others over software patents.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115686)

That's just sick and perverse. I just assumed he wanted to jerk off to it.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115886)

That still doesn't make it relevant. SCO's case was garbage, PJ, whether a human being, the IBM legal team or Jesus Fucking Christ, did a considerable amount of analysis, and backed the analysis of experts in Unix, who said that McBride was nothing more than a common thug trying to use what his company did not possess to extort licensing fees from companies using Unix-like operating systems.

At the end of the day, SCO failed because it had been taken over by dishonest and dishonorable scamsters.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115972)

IBM makes SCO look amateurish compared to their software patent tactics. SCO is bad because they failed and IBM is great because they succeed at the very same thing SCO tried to do? Sense, you aren't making it son.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116042)

Be that as it may, the fact is that SCO failed because they did not own what they claimed to own, and Groklaw played a part in that, at least so far as keeping the case out there even as the courts gave McBride and his legal team way too much rope. IBM can be a major asshole, but we were all on the same team at that point, and I'm damned glad that IBM didn't simply do the normal thing a large corporation would do and buy off the smaller company making the claims

And, as I said, PJ's identity is irrelevant to all of this anyways. The only people who seemed obsessed with it were the crooks at SCO and a few incredibly dishonorable "journalists".

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116004)

t is revelvent because a lot of people think that GL is a front for IBM.

A lot of people think an invisible man in the sky wants them to kill people, too. In both cases, they're best left to their delusions unless they actually act on their loony ideas, in which case it is incumbent on the rational people of the world to slap them down and get on with our lives.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115948)

Can anyone show me a picture of the person who is bankrolling SCOx?

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO! (5, Interesting)

redwhine (1990662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115490)

I think Groklaw got it right... The UnXis URL http://unxis.co.uk/ [unxis.co.uk] takes you to a SCO page with the title "unXis - The future of UNIX is here"

Sounds about right (4, Informative)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116122)

it looks like SCO is trying to split off their still profitable software business from the dead and deader lawsuit business so when the whole thing gets dissolved by bankruptcy their creditors are left holding and empty bag.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115672)

Hello, Groklaw seems to imply a relationship between the two...

Groklaw served a very valuable purpose in its "heyday", but now is more simply a platform for the paranoid ramblings of "PJ" as she desperately searches for some way to stay relevant (and keep the donations coming)...

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115888)

Hi, Darl!

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (3)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115896)

Then don't go there. I haven't visited Groklaw in a helluva long time. But there seem to be a lot of people who somehow think they're being clever by kicking PJ's name and reputation around, and that bothers me. She provided an incredible important purpose, and deserves better than some stupid fucking AC on Slashdot mouthing off.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116048)

I would say that anyone trying to accurately report the state and actions of SCO can't help but to *seem* paranoid. You have to keep in mind how incredibly insane SCO people have repeatedly been. They charged at *IBM* with no case at all. They played all sorts of games with investors and regulatory agencies to cheat their way out of trouble and keeping as much money as possible. This 'Unxis' being nothing more than some sort of shell game to further misdirect things is not far fetched at all. It's not really paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115714)

What the link says is a former executive of SCO owns the domain name. And while it would be easy to build some paranoid scenario involving the evil Darl, a more reasonable speculation is that that a former executive with some knowledge of the assets sees some value in them outside of the IP lawsuit industry, which clearly failed for SCO...

some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115190)

  • Buyer is dsylexic and/or a terrible speller
  • pronounced "Un-cease" - litigation against Linux and others not over, not by a long shot
  • "U-N Cease" - a shadowy organization opposed to the United Nations
  • Buyer is a phishing site looking to cash in on people punching in URLs with fat fingers
  • Buyer and/or SCO waiting for someone to register unxis.com opportunistically, then they'll sue for $100 million

Re:some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116450)

As for last point - won't work if the domain buyer is located outside the US with different legislation. The courts may not even bother then.

Re:some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117424)

UnXis, pronounced as "unc-sis" short for "uncle-sister".
All we can say is; this company is based in Alabama.

More Info by mere mortals (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115206)

Reading the comments where it does not get ummm erased is some what more informative at:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&clear=1&pt=m [investorvillage.com]

Comments there are not scrutinized as much and therefore more interesting.

A reminder (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115222)

Don't forget to make your checks out to UnXis for $699.. you cock smoking tea baggers - Sarah Palin (TM)

What is UnXis? (1)

srk (49331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115226)

Does anybody know what UnXis is? Is it a real company or facade for something? Googling does not reveal much.

Re:What is UnXis? (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115332)

Does anybody know what UnXis is?

I think UnXis is the plural of Unix.

Re:What is UnXis? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115426)

No, you're thinking of "Unices", or perhaps "Unixen". I have never seen "Unxis" as the plural of "Unix", although it sort of looks like the negation of "axis".

"Unixen?" (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115770)

On Dasher, on Prancer, on Comet and Unixen? Or more like Boxen, maybe?

In all seriousness, Unixes is what I hear most often, with no regard given to its correctness. I think Unices sounds best, though it kinda comes off sounding like an acronymized UN agency. Your mileage may vary.

Re:What is UnXis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117426)

Excellent reply! I'm sure WrongSizeGlass wasn't making a joke or anything.

Re:What is UnXis? (-1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115444)

Does anybody know what UnXis is? Is it a real company or facade for something? Googling does not reveal much.

http://www.unxis.ca/ [unxis.ca]

Re:What is UnXis? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115552)

That domain is just some guy in North York, ON that does consulting (do a whois and look yourself).

It's not related to this, so don't call the guy up and give him shit.

The real domain, unxis.co.uk, as stated above, belongs to SCO since it redirects to SCO.

The question is, does the guy in North York have a beef with SCO now?

--
BMO

Hooray! (5, Funny)

dexomn (147950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115286)

Ding! Dong! The witch is ... Wait what? OH DAMN IT!!!

Re:Hooray! - Post to undo moderation (1)

ancientt (569920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115660)

doh! I was torn on whether to rate this as funny or not, but in the end, after admitting to myself that a snort did indeed escape, fresh and new or not, I admitted to myself that it was funny. Then I hit the wrong key. My apologies. But, worse, I hit troll and it certainly wasn't.

Well, it WAS a good game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35115762)

Apparently someone at SCO just finished playing Kingdom Hearts 2?

Not a good start given the new name (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115774)

I read UnXis as "unctuous":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unctuous [wiktionary.org]

Adjective
unctuous
1. Oily or greasy.
2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor.
3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.

UnXis = Sketchy (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35115958)

Take a look at the "about us" page: UNXIS - About Us [unxis.ca]

M.I.C.K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E. - who want's to sing along?

Re:UnXis = Sketchy (1)

gasmasher (750585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116120)

These are not the droids you are looking for... see this reply [slashdot.org] .

I see that all my usual meat is taken (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116406)

Normally I would post some information here that's relevant to the current squabble, some stuff that equates to the ultimate decimation of SCO and their trolling ways. But that's a foregone conclusion. Dissolution is waiting for SCO, and the only interesting thing about it is the way they do it.

But that is settled, so if I want to educate and inform I have to go further afield. One of those ways is to teach folk about Ransom Love.

You see, Ransom was a Linux geek, fully into the ecosystem. He understood why this would win, though he was ahead of his time by a decade. His company (caldera) made a Linux distro and it was seen for a while as the fusion of commercial VS free. He hit his IPO at the peak of the .com era, and for a time his company was worth billions of dollars. He looked at this and said, "well, if we're worth so much, why don't we buy Unix, which is worth so little today?" He was a true geek and admired the Unix in a way most of those who read this can't. And that was his undoing. He might have done it, but time and market forces blocked him.

You see, the Unix Way isn't a software product. It's not a bulk of code. It's not a block of copyrights. It's a philosophy. It can't be owned, any more than the Scientific Method can be owned.

So he bought it, and suffered therefrom. He's an IT geek for the Mormon church now. He'll carry what might-have-been to his dieing day, but he should let it go. He reached for a ring that was not there.

Today mobile is taking over the IT revolution from desktops. The dominant forces are a derivation of BSD Unix (iOS) and Linux in the form of Android. Ransom was right. He was just too early, and some day we'll grant him his rightful place in the pantheon of tech visionaries. For now he suffers the fate of a local prophet, which is to say a local prophet is always stoned.

Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117558)

He was doomed from the start. You can't ransom love.

Re:I see that all my usual meat is taken (1)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117692)

I just wanted to clarify something. What exactly did Ransom Love buy? Are you saying his company *did* buy the copyrights to Unix even though two trials and an appeals court say no, he did not?

Singing frog (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116574)

maybe the see an opportunity is sue ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vH2rjUshk

Wrong summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35116680)

SCO (which is bankrupt) wants to sell itself to UnXis (which is closely related). But the bankrupcy court will decide on feb 16th.

The summary is from a SCO press release. And SCO are... uhm... lying bastards?

Go and read Groklaw.

Darl will have to take two to the back of the head (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116714)

This man (and I use the term loosely,) has a major hard-on for Linux and, like a rabid dog, he's not going to unclench his jaws from the smoke he's holding until somebody puts him down.

I can see him at the rense.com studios, well into his eighties, yelling into some one else's microphone, trying to get people to give a shit.

He's just there for comic relief, to fill the air time between the commercials,, like the conspiracy theorists, the Hitler sympathizers and the other nuts who are paraded out to soak up the minutes.

Its sad really.

Re:Darl will have to take two to the back of the h (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35116868)

I suspect that Darl has a pile of cash stowed away in a bank on the Cayman Islands. I think he's a goddamn fucking asshole, but he is not stupid. He did all that bullshit because someone paid him to do it. Of course, this will remain speculation given the tight lips at the banks on the Cayman Islands. It will never be proven, since it was all probably handled through trusted middlemen. Well, maybe some pissed off bank employee will pass something off to WikiLeaks, but I would not bother to hold my breath waiting for that one.

Classic two man scam (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117278)

You do remember that most of that SCO money that was pissed away on legal delaying tactics went to Darl's brother don't you?
It was a two man scam.
Linux was just the brand of the company car, IBM was the wall and Darl's brother's legal firm was the panel shop that did the work at a huge markup. Huge amounts of money funnelled out and no need to hide it.
The entire thing really had nothing to do with linux and was just a scam on the SCO shareholders with a possible bit of pump and dump on the side.

Ho-hum. (1)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117684)

Boy, Slashdot is really fired up on this one. I'm pretty sure the judge is going to slap them down for trying to pawn off the lawsuit to a deeper pocket.

Troll (1)

Frnknstn (663642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117728)

97 comments so far, and no "I hope you paid your $400 licensing fees, you cocksmoking teabaggers!" troll nostalgia yet?

For shame, Slashdot, for shame.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?