[Cialug] SCO's not dead yet

Bryan Baker ka_klick at mac.com
Tue Oct 9 08:57:02 CDT 2007 

Lot's of good stuff there Josh.

A couple additional data points that I believe make the scenario  
unlikely:

1. the UNIX™ trademark is owned by The Open Group - has been since  
AT&T got out iirc.
2. The last rulings in Novell look pretty conclusive that SCOX itself  
owns little.
3. The bankruptcy is pretty clearly to stop the Novell trial from  
gutting their coffers.


On Oct 8, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Josh More wrote:
> A few thoughts from someone who spent far too many years working on  
> SCO
> systems.
>
> Yes, SCO is a rock solid unix, but bear in mind that architecting for
> stability and architecting for extensibility are very different
> operations.  Installing non-SCO software on SCO in a way that is
> supportable is very difficult.
>
> SCO and Novell both believe that they owned the rights to the term
> "Unix".  Given how people have been saying for years that Linux is
> compatible with Unix, but does not contain Unix, I do not believe that
> it would in anyone's best interest to purchase SCO for the (disputed)
> Unix name.  If SCO does go away, I do see it as possible that  
> Novell may
> take a lesser payment if they get can get undisputed control over the
> Unix source, just to stabilize things for the future.
>
> In many ways, they are in the same market position as Novell was  
> before
> they acquired SUSE.  They used to make a lot of money by selling
> licenses, but those clients have been moving to Linux over the years.
> Their ability to sell high-priced Unix over Linux has eroded as FUD  
> has
> stopped working.  They never really pursued embedded systems and their
> network stack was so horrible that they never had a serious play on  
> the
> Internet.  Their current stock price may well reflect their true value
> as a company.
>
> So, what value would a SCO purchase have?  I do not believe that  
> anyone
> would purchase them to support an internal system, as they have been
> touting SCO's reliability for years.  Honestly, it *is* a rock  
> solid and
> stable system.  In fact, it's one that can run for years without  
> updates
> or maintenance.  (Hmm, wonder where all that projected maintenance
> revenue went.)  If someone wanted to purchase SCO to make it easier to
> move to Linux, it would be much cheaper to just stop updates and  
> move to
> Linux.  You could put a deep-inspection firewall in front of each SCO
> server or move the servers to virtual environments and keep the legacy
> systems running indefinitely.  A SCO purchase would not make sense for
> that.
>
> Similarly, a SCO purchase would not make sense for someone wanting to
> take over SCO's intellectual property.  The property with intrinsic
> value is in dispute (IBM and Novell) and the rest of it is, at best, a
> third tier player.  In fact, I only see two value propositions:
>
> 1) IBM might be interested in buying SCO simply to make the lawsuit go
> away.  I see this as unlikely, as I believe that IBM is very likely to
> win the suit, and having legal precedence on this issue would be good
> for the industry.  That said, IBM might wind up acquiring all of SCO's
> assets by default if they win and SCO cannot pay.
>
> 2) Someone (Novell, RedHat, Ubuntu) might be interested in buying SCO
> if they can get SCO's contracts with their existing customers.  Any  
> one
> of the above companies would love to get *their* Linux into McDonalds
> and some of the other big clients.  Novell would likely have an easier
> time of it, as their stable/secure Linux market story makes a  
> conversion
> from SCO pretty easy.  However, it would be a *huge* boost for  
> Ubuntu's
> planned server move and if they get a decent conversion rate they  
> would
> turn into a big server player practically over night.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Josh More, RHCE, CISSP, NCLP, GIAC
>  morej at alliancetechnologies.net
>  515-245-7701
>
>
>
>>>> Theron Conrey <theron.conrey at dice.com> 10/08/07 3:24 PM >>>
> Right, So I'd look at it as a way (considering the final cost of
> course) to keep alive and utilize your existing (and expensive) IT
> infrastructure and help increase the odds of a future migration  
> path as
> opposed to an all out gut-and-replace down the line.  Buying what was
> left (again cost) even at millions of dollars, may save well over that
> amount in the long run.  Turning that code over, (cost sharing?) to a
> large Linux stakeholder, and getting some agreement to provide an
> upgrade path, would benefit the company financially, and allow for a
> smoother migration, especially if people could write to the existing
> code base.
>
> But, coming down out of la-la land, I realize it would be hard to sell
> it.  But heh, McD dresses up tubers better than anyone else so  
> anything
> is possible.
>
> -Theron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave J. Hala Jr.
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:46 PM
> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
> Subject: RE: [Cialug] SCO's not dead yet
>
> That depends. Could you buy SCO for less than what a migration would
> cost? If I was an old school corporate guy, its unlikely that I'd be
> thinking about buying SCO and open sourcing their stuff so that I
> (McDonalds) would benefit.
>
> If they opened up SCO's stuff would the open source community improve
> it? Would it benefit McDonalds? How long would it take?
>
> If you did buy them, as a failing company, you'd probably consider  
> it a
> stop-gap measure to buy you some time before you did the migration
> anyway.
>
> I just can't believe that McDonalds corporate would take that kind of
> chance, but who knows?  I just can't see quarter pounders made from
> penguin meat as a profitable undertaking.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:35 -0500, Theron Conrey wrote:
>> I'd argue that point.  I'm pretty sure that a company as big as McD
> would benefit from just buying the remaining bits of software that SCO
> actually owns that runs their environment rather then migrating.
> There's a reason that Sun purchased star office (and then began open
> sourcing) rather than deploy windows office .  However, a fantastic
> kicking would be delivered if McD (or another company) bought what was
> left and open sourced whatever code they could find that was worth
> anything.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave J. Hala Jr.
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:01 PM
>> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>> Subject: RE: [Cialug] SCO's not dead yet
>>
>> Why would you buy them? It would be cheaper for McDonalds to switch
> to Windows then buy SCO. Why continue the fight? They've obviously  
> been
> beaten -there's no "revenue" to be gained.
>>
>> :)  Dave
>>
>> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 +0000, Nathan C. Smith wrote:
>>> I would be concerned about a SCO-friendly company with deep
> pockets
>>> buying them and continuing the fight.  You have to wonder how many
>>> people are left at the company and what the SCO-faithful still
> look
>>> like.  Article Says McDonald's is a client.  Why don't they buy
> them?
>>>
>>> -Nate
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan C. Bailey [mailto:jbailey at co.marshall.ia.us]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:30 PM
>>> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Cialug] SCO's not dead yet
>>>
>>> I just read that and thought of Monty Python...
>>>
>>> "Bring out yer dead!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Jon
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Champion" <dchampion at visionary.com>
>>> To: "Central Iowa Linux Users Group" <cialug at cialug.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 1:21:59 PM (GMT-0600)
> America/Chicago
>>> Subject: [Cialug] SCO's not dead yet
>>>
>>> Just FYI, SCO isn't dead yet...
>>>
>>>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBa
>>> si
>>> c&arti
>>> cleId=304668&source=NLT_OS&nlid=41
>>>
>>> Darl: "It's like the Linux faithful are lined up for the bad news.
>>> They've got their confetti ready to throw, and everybody's all
> excited."
>>>
>>> Anyone know where I can get some good confetti?
>>>
>>> -dc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cialug mailing list
>>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cialug mailing list
>>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cialug mailing list
>>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug

--
Bryan "ka-klick" Baker
Singer/Songwriter
With 2 New CDs!!! See my website for details
ka-klick at ka-klick.com
http://ka-klick.com

More information about the Cialug mailing list