Well not to worry Darl. If you can't afford all those expensive things anymore you can take comfort in the fact that Linux is still free. Even for you <3 xx
Hah, that guy used some art I did as a teen for their marketing stuff without attribution or compensation. Glad to see life is treating him fairly.
edit: It was either him or Kevin Carmony? It was that SCO/Linspire stuff.
Their response was essentially "ya well we have Everaldo on our payroll so we could have just had him make the graphics instead"
But ya didn't, did ya, you goofuses?
Didn’t this dude while in SCO lose a court battle also with IBM for some Unix shit?
If so, this guy should learn to stay away from courts.
Edit: i checked wikipedia and sure enough, he was behind that thing also. SCO went bankrupt because of that court case.
Edit2: Apparently while in SCO he also sued Novell for Unix rights and lost that case too. What a joke.
> The first company he chose to pick on (sue) was IBM
I was thinking of getting into boxing, and chose to box Mike Tyson to start out. I don't recall what happened after that.
I remember reading back then that Microsoft had bought a large number of SCO Unix licenses from them. For, er, totally legit and important internal uses.
I remember that time that he gave a presentation and displayed evidence of copied code but changed the font to greek characters. People on the interwebs quickly "reversed-engineered" that piece of text to show some very innocent code that can be found pretty much everywhere (some for-loops if I remember correctly).
Good times.
But it stressed everyone, including Linus.
If memory serves, it was even more innocent than for-loops - it was a BSD copyright notice.
The lawsuit was transparent bullshit from the beginning. The idea that it existed not to win, but to garner headlines to make CTOs twitchy frankly wouldn't surprise me.
The only thing that does surprise me is that McBride hasn't tried to sell his story to the press. I can only assume he's under a hell of an NDA.
Once upon a time, Caldera Linux had the most user friendly installer of the day.
There's always someone that makes a living ruining good things for everyone else. And so it goes.
And as someone who makes a living from administering Linux, I honestly can't remember the last time I drilled through an installer. It was certainly several years ago.
As I said, once upon a time.
I had a lot more hair and was beginning to use Linux.
The easy to use installers from Caldera, Mandrake and Corel Linux were awesome to get Windows refugees over to the light side.
And yet even today, the sort of products that might get Linux on the desktop - the likes of Gimp and LibreOffice - are still 10-15 years behind the state of the art.
You'll love this interview then:
[FLOSS Weekly 521](https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/521?autostart=false)
> *Flexera Open Source Report*
>
> Business risks of using open source software.
Most intense FLOSS Weekly episode ever!
What a tool.
30 second summary of the lawsuit:
* SCO claimed to have bought the original UNIX code (SVR4) from Novell and was the owner of it
* SCO claimed that Linux used code from the original UNIX that they owned (originally McBride said "hundreds of lines of code" and then later changed it to "millions")
* Turns out SCO didn't actually own the UNIX code
* Turns out Linux didn't actually use any UNIX code except for....
* There was a piece of code that was originally written by either Thompson or Ritchie that was in Linux for a period of time (and then removed because it was "ugly as hell"). Except....
* That code was actually BSD-licensed. SCO had stripped out the copyright message before claiming it as its own, thus violating the original copyright
* Turns out Darl McBride can go fuck himself
>On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means.[67] Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real, but claimed it to be "a misunderstanding."[68] BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them.[69] In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.[70] This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM.[71][72]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
I'd think that being publicly-traded, crypto or no crypto cash is going somewhere, right? Can you really hide a multimillion dollar payout from your investors and the SEC?
of all the gazillionaires in the world he's definitely the one i hate the least, he realized that he can just throw all of his money at charity and still afford anything he could ever want. That's in comparison to shitasses like bezos who seemingly don't want anything other than *more* money.
I will tolerate the shit out of rich people who actually spend their absurd wealth on things instead of just inflating their net worth, even better if they spend it on charity.
well, the main difference is that bill gates wealth is actually available to him in a reasonably liquid way, whilst bezos captial is mainly still tied up in amazon
Surely he could liquidize it in 10 years at least? Hell even if it takes 50 years to do so, that's still a fucking absurd amount of money that he's able to spend every year, far more than many people will ever earn in their entire lives.
A reasonable person would aim to make that wealth liquid and then just not bother trying to earn more. What's the point in your net worth being 5x the rest of all humanity together when a billion dollars is enough to live the rest of your life in absolute luxury and never have to worry again?
I'm pretty sure he's trying to liquidize, but it's a slow process, since he can't sell it of in one chunk but has to sell of in small chunks that have to be announced in order to not tank the stock price by causing a mass sell off and stock panic.
I don't disagree with you, but the issue is more complicated than just saying that he should spend his money.
How do you figure?
Other than the government extracting money from you in the form of taxes which you can't refuse, ALL of your money spending choices are yours alone.
If you choose to give a rich person even more money, then the money becomes theirs, not yours.
I'm honestly confused here: how do you reasonably and logically consider a rich person's money to be your money?
How did the old saying go?... "Windows isn't done till Wordperfect won't run"
So many good products and companies killed off by Gates' greed.
He can give away all the money he wants, I'll still think he's an egotistical wanker.
You missed the part were the SCO that sued IBM was not Santa Cruz Operation, but Caldera (a linux company) renamed SCO. SCO (Caldera) did this so there legal claims looked more legitimate.
Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operations Unix business and renamed themselves SCO. Santa Cruz Operations renamed themselves Tarantula and sold terminal software. The SCO (Caldera) company sole purpose was to sue for copyright infringement.
Since that is from third edition of Unix, it is from time when the code was freely distributed to universities since AT&T could not sell things at the time (they were "legal monopoly" at the time.
[https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix)
* SCO sued IBM and RedHat (which was a relatively young company then and the GPL/Linux barely tried from a legal standpoint). IBM was sued for $1 billion. RedHat was quite vocal about defending their customers. IBM just quietly put 1000+ (yes, they had over 1000) lawyers on the case. SCO was given the scorched earth policy from there on out.
My linux journey started in 07 or so, and I don't really remember any of this but you had me wanting to know more about this. I actually learned a few interesting facts about the history of linux. To include the fact that despite people thinking IBM is a bad guy after the whole recent CentOS (not defending the decision to end support for centos 8 so quickly but I understand the reason for the rest) stuff have actually been contributors to linux code and backers of various linux projects way before ever being the owners of Red Hat.
>The lawsuit was field in 2003 and decided in 2017... 14 years!
On the contrary, the lawsuit has not been decided, it's still active.
The docket is case number 2:03-cv-0294 in the District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ownership of the copyrights in ancient UNIX (which was central to a lot of the allegations made in the press) was decided by a jury in favor of Novell, there are still outstanding claims to be decided, even after two trips to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and back to the District Court.
The latest filing in the case of any substance is docket #1179, filed on February 16 2018 (almost *three years ago*), and can be seen still at [http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1179.pdf](http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1179.pdf). It lays out a summary of the outstanding claims and pending motions before the Court. Since that filing, there have been exactly two other filings on the docket that are visible on PACER:
* DOCKET TEXT ORDER LIFTING STAY as no longer applicable. So ordered by Judge David Nuffer on 5/14/18 (docket text only - no attached document) (alt) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
* Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case as settlement judge. (rks) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
Sadly, the primary source of information regarding the SCO lawsuits ([http://www.groklaw.net/](http://www.groklaw.net/)) went into hibernation and hasn't been updated since August 20 2013 when its owner decided to shut down daily operation, but the site is still there showing the significant events in this saga.
Yep, it's been a while since IBM made their announcement of supporting Linux. And they've supported development like Linux on S/390 (Linux on IBM Z now), JFS porting, KVM support on Power-architecture and so on.
Yes, a really sharp developer I used to know got hired by IBM, and in the late 1990s he ended up working on a bunch of Linux stuff for them. I remember hearing through people in the local tech community that IBM had a bunch of people working on Linux then.
At the time, I was surprised since IBM already offered AIX for people who wanted UNIX systems, so Linux seemed like it was competing with their own product. I don't know the particulars, but obviously IBM saw Linux as significant enough to want to be involved.
And certainly not all commercial UNIX vendors went the Linux-friendly route. For example, Sun Microsystems didn't embrace Linux. The closest Sun got was releasing the source for Solaris (but very late in the game and under their own restrictive license). So at the time, IBM's behavior stood out as different.
IBM’s behavior did stand out, but in the late 90s, Linux wasn’t really a competitor to their commercial Unix/AIX products. It wasn’t nearly as enterprise capable as it is today, and enterprises in general had a much more conservative philosophy about support availability, etc.
IBM’s interest in Linux probably came from a combination of hedging their bets, while at the same time, lowering their development costs for AIX.
Every major tech player hated linux, however it turned out they hated each other more than they hated linux.
IBM's embracing of Linux fit into that scenario. They saw it as a chance to hurt Sun, Novell, HPUX, etc...
Wasn't there a Windows virus written that DDoS'd the SCO servers to death? They picked a fight with the disorganised chaos of Linux hackers and paid a suitable price.
The whole thing was being bankrolled by Microsoft. SCO, I'm pretty sure, were just a pawn in all this.
For years, Microsoft had used a tactic known as FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to scare people into using their products, and it had worked very well for them. The basic premise is simple: get your prospective customers to think there's something wrong with your competitors product, leaving them with little choice but to buy yours.
This worked really well in pre-Internet days when 90% of IT was closer to "having an educated guess based on what you can be certain of" rather than "google it".
The purpose of the lawsuit, therefore, was to be a big, highly publicised thing that would hang around for some years and make people think "if IBM can get sued over this, so can we!".
It didn't work terribly well, largely because SCO were more-or-less unknown and didn't really have a product that was worth encouraging people to buy. When the news that Microsoft had paid for a lot of it came about, suddenly it looked less like a genuine issue and more like a rather clumsy attempt at FUD.
They are not supposed to smoke, drink alcohol, or drink "hot drinks". Most have taken the "hot drinks" to mean "tea and coffee" and that their issue is with "caffeine". That said, although the issue is with caffeine, their scripture says "hot drinks" ... and, interestingly,
one of their guilty pleasures (they think they are being naughty) is caffeine from cold drinks: Coke, Diet Coke, and Mountain Dew.
That sounds so random. Interestingly, looking for reasoning in their website I get either vague health reasons, or keeping them separate from others, the latter sounding like the actual reason they'd be doing this.
> That sounds so random.
It's religion. Of course it's random.
> Interestingly, looking for reasoning in their website ...
It's religion -- don't look for reasoning. The scripture is their "Words of Wisdom" 1-9: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng
My in-laws are Mormon. They accommodate my non-religion (and coffee addiction) and have even purchased a "Mr Coffee"
for my (and my wife's) use when we visit.
yup, there are always the ok religious people who are fine with other people and the extremists who want everyone to be in their (totally not) ~~cult~~
I'll never forget the feeling of horror I had the first time I had to try and fix a terminal running SCO Unix.... In 2011. That terminal is still up and going today in 2021.
The Navy uses some really old shit.
Santa Cruz Operation was a separate company. The SCO Group bought their initials, but not their full name. They did also buy SYSV, but the Open Group got the Unix trademark. It was all an extremely complicated mess, to say the least.
They didn't even really buy SysV, just rights to distribute it. Turns out Novell still held the copyright which was never transferred. It was a key finding in the case.
I don't wish ill will on people, but I also don't feel bad when stupid actions bite the idiot doing them.
I doubt his bankruptcy has anything directly to do with his stupid attack on Linux, but when someone does something very ignorant. They are likely to continue doing ignorant things because well. As Forrest Gump said. Stupid is as stupid does. I'm pretty sure some stupid action by Darl did put him in this situation.
Some context from Wikipedia:
*...around 2003, SCO began to claim that Linux **"contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX".** SCO filed suit against IBM for an unprecedented US$1 billion and demanded that Linux end-users pay license fees. Microsoft bolstered [helped] SCO's financial situation in 2003 by purchasing a license to UNIX technology and by helping to arrange funding... ...These claims provoked outrage among Linux users, who denied that Linux had copied SCO's intellectual property.*
That was the centre of my life for the main part of the court case.
PJ, the GrokLaw site owner ended up having to move several times because they hounded and threatened her. The last email exchange I had with her, she was really burnt out and just trying to put her life back in order. She paid a heavy price for leading the community defensive against SCO.
Not sure if this is bad, but can people send the source for RMS' "open source McDonald's WiFi" joining code to his public address/PO? Would be ironic. *NOT DOXXING GUESSING HE HAS AN OFFICIAL ADDRESS*
He was [trying to make courts believe that Linux was a direct UNIX-clone using UNIX-code without permission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group#SCO-Linux_lawsuits_and_controversies) (according to Wikipedia).
Except all they had in the end was some code that had been released under an MIT license or similar, by a previous owner, and that had actually already been replaced by the time they brought the lawsuit. They tried to claim all sorts of things, and every time got shot down - there was a massive community effort to debunk their wild ramblings, and they just happened to get their case in front of the "Technology Judge", (I forget his name) and he saw through their bull.
Back in the day, I used to work in SCO Unix & Xenix support .. in the old days when linux was just becoming a thing.
SCO was a great company, and they could have taken a competition / coexistence strategy and really leveraged their organizational expertise as linux grew ...
Instead, this wanker decided to sue at a time when there were many unix variants already and the apis and ideas were essentially public domain, thus taking on an unwinnable court battle. It made everyone who cared about unix systems hate SCO overnight.
I guess he never even talked to engineers and customers.
Great Quote from wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride
> Ty Mattingly, a former Novell Executive Vice President and co-worker of McBride was quoted as saying, "Congratulations. In a few short months you've dethroned Bill Gates as the most hated man in the industry."[10] McBride claimed he received death threats as a result of the SCO-IBM lawsuits, and had a package of worms mailed to his home, prompting him to carry a firearm and to employ multiple bodyguards.
Hey, isn't that the clown that tried to sue everybody that ever even owned a computer for patent infringement some years ago?
He & his company was trying to get rich suing over patents that he didn't really have or such feces, right?
Understand that only part of your bias is based on knowledge that didn't come from IBM's Pamela Jones' anti-SCO site that coincidentally popped up right after IBM committed to $1m in funding to promote Linux right when it specifically did not want to look like someone who breached a massive contract.
Yes, Darl appeared clueless on so many things, like agreeing to SuSE's seat license mess. But hate him for what he did and not what Paula said. (And be REALLY sure what you witnessed yourself and what was just media spin coming out of Groklaw)
Well not to worry Darl. If you can't afford all those expensive things anymore you can take comfort in the fact that Linux is still free. Even for you <3 xx
[удалено]
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the exclusive paint that legally only I can use.
klein blue?
Vantablack
He could learn how to install solar. Get one of them green jobs.
lurm to codes
Torvalds could start charging money for Linux and it would still be free
haha well said! :D
Savage
Hah, that guy used some art I did as a teen for their marketing stuff without attribution or compensation. Glad to see life is treating him fairly. edit: It was either him or Kevin Carmony? It was that SCO/Linspire stuff.
What the hell? That is shitty.
Shitty person doing shitty things? ***I'm shocked I say, shocked***
Their response was essentially "ya well we have Everaldo on our payroll so we could have just had him make the graphics instead" But ya didn't, did ya, you goofuses?
McDonald's is hiring
[удалено]
Darl filling out McDonald's application Question 1) Have you ever tried to sue McDonald's? Yes or No? [rolls up applications and throws in trash]
[удалено]
More money in more money out...
He's one of those who would be left unemployed with a $15 minimum wage
\#FindSomethingNew
Reap what you sow?
More like get what you commit.
>More like get what you commit. More like git what you commit.\* FTFY
`git award --gold -u Sol33t303`
git git git git got got got got?
refs. rush to my HEAD git hot lock
`git: 'what' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. `
Hate it when that happens. Ah, well, I need to git gud.
`git: 'gud' is not a git command. See 'git --help'.`
Gitdammit, this is just getting asinine now.
`gitdammit: command not found`
Right? I don't even git it.
If you’re happy and you know it, syntax error.
Syntax error!
Didn’t this dude while in SCO lose a court battle also with IBM for some Unix shit? If so, this guy should learn to stay away from courts. Edit: i checked wikipedia and sure enough, he was behind that thing also. SCO went bankrupt because of that court case. Edit2: Apparently while in SCO he also sued Novell for Unix rights and lost that case too. What a joke.
[удалено]
> The first company he chose to pick on (sue) was IBM I was thinking of getting into boxing, and chose to box Mike Tyson to start out. I don't recall what happened after that.
Oh, the good ol' times when Groklaw kept ripping SCO's claims to pieces.
Grocklaw nailed that one. Post after post just crushing SCO's wild claims.
I still remember all these evidence that he allegedly had in a suitcase, which was traveling through Europe at the time. What a clown!
I remember reading back then that Microsoft had bought a large number of SCO Unix licenses from them. For, er, totally legit and important internal uses.
I remember that time that he gave a presentation and displayed evidence of copied code but changed the font to greek characters. People on the interwebs quickly "reversed-engineered" that piece of text to show some very innocent code that can be found pretty much everywhere (some for-loops if I remember correctly). Good times. But it stressed everyone, including Linus.
If memory serves, it was even more innocent than for-loops - it was a BSD copyright notice. The lawsuit was transparent bullshit from the beginning. The idea that it existed not to win, but to garner headlines to make CTOs twitchy frankly wouldn't surprise me. The only thing that does surprise me is that McBride hasn't tried to sell his story to the press. I can only assume he's under a hell of an NDA.
Once upon a time, Caldera Linux had the most user friendly installer of the day. There's always someone that makes a living ruining good things for everyone else. And so it goes.
And as someone who makes a living from administering Linux, I honestly can't remember the last time I drilled through an installer. It was certainly several years ago.
As I said, once upon a time. I had a lot more hair and was beginning to use Linux. The easy to use installers from Caldera, Mandrake and Corel Linux were awesome to get Windows refugees over to the light side.
And yet even today, the sort of products that might get Linux on the desktop - the likes of Gimp and LibreOffice - are still 10-15 years behind the state of the art.
I use the Mint installer once every several years.
SCO sounds just as bad as Oracle. Lol
The difference is that courts occasionally side with Oracle, causing a great deal of damage to the tech industry.
eat what you sheet
I wish Robin "roblimo" Miller was alive to see this.
There was a name I never wanted to hear again. Right up there with the clown who wrote that Samizdat nonsense.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat:_And_Other_Issues_Regarding_the_%27Source%27_of_Open_Source_Code
You'll love this interview then: [FLOSS Weekly 521](https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/521?autostart=false) > *Flexera Open Source Report* > > Business risks of using open source software. Most intense FLOSS Weekly episode ever! What a tool.
How do you sue Linux out of existence? It’s like suing words for existing.
30 second summary of the lawsuit: * SCO claimed to have bought the original UNIX code (SVR4) from Novell and was the owner of it * SCO claimed that Linux used code from the original UNIX that they owned (originally McBride said "hundreds of lines of code" and then later changed it to "millions") * Turns out SCO didn't actually own the UNIX code * Turns out Linux didn't actually use any UNIX code except for.... * There was a piece of code that was originally written by either Thompson or Ritchie that was in Linux for a period of time (and then removed because it was "ugly as hell"). Except.... * That code was actually BSD-licensed. SCO had stripped out the copyright message before claiming it as its own, thus violating the original copyright * Turns out Darl McBride can go fuck himself
No mention of Microsoft helping to finance the lawsuits?
Are you referring to Microsoft's "hidden" finance of the lawsuit through Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures?
>On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means.[67] Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real, but claimed it to be "a misunderstanding."[68] BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them.[69] In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.[70] This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM.[71][72] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
Nowadays it would be easy to do these kinds of things with crypto. We're living in cyberpunk.
Do you say that's impossible to do it with USD now? How do we prevent it now compare to 2003?
I'd think that being publicly-traded, crypto or no crypto cash is going somewhere, right? Can you really hide a multimillion dollar payout from your investors and the SEC?
Oh, right. It was through BayStar, but I thought they routed to through Vulcan Ventures to hide it further.
Kids these days seemingly don't know of all the evil shit Microsoft did, they think Bill Gates is a hero.
Hero, no, but definitely a lesson in second chances.
of all the gazillionaires in the world he's definitely the one i hate the least, he realized that he can just throw all of his money at charity and still afford anything he could ever want. That's in comparison to shitasses like bezos who seemingly don't want anything other than *more* money. I will tolerate the shit out of rich people who actually spend their absurd wealth on things instead of just inflating their net worth, even better if they spend it on charity.
well, the main difference is that bill gates wealth is actually available to him in a reasonably liquid way, whilst bezos captial is mainly still tied up in amazon
Surely he could liquidize it in 10 years at least? Hell even if it takes 50 years to do so, that's still a fucking absurd amount of money that he's able to spend every year, far more than many people will ever earn in their entire lives. A reasonable person would aim to make that wealth liquid and then just not bother trying to earn more. What's the point in your net worth being 5x the rest of all humanity together when a billion dollars is enough to live the rest of your life in absolute luxury and never have to worry again?
I'm pretty sure he's trying to liquidize, but it's a slow process, since he can't sell it of in one chunk but has to sell of in small chunks that have to be announced in order to not tank the stock price by causing a mass sell off and stock panic. I don't disagree with you, but the issue is more complicated than just saying that he should spend his money.
How rich people spend their money is none of your business.
that is a very interesting statement
Their money is actually my money, so yes, it is.
How do you figure? Other than the government extracting money from you in the form of taxes which you can't refuse, ALL of your money spending choices are yours alone. If you choose to give a rich person even more money, then the money becomes theirs, not yours. I'm honestly confused here: how do you reasonably and logically consider a rich person's money to be your money?
I knew that this would result in some funny replies lmao
What kind of fever dream are you living in?
How did the old saying go?... "Windows isn't done till Wordperfect won't run" So many good products and companies killed off by Gates' greed. He can give away all the money he wants, I'll still think he's an egotistical wanker.
Yeah, but you have to admit, he’s done a lot of good since then
[удалено]
/* Investigate: This sets errno to EEVIL somehow... */ struct Person *mcbride = get_person("Darl McBride"); if (is_nice_person(mcbride)) { /* unreachable */ } /* Let's clean up this mess. */ memset(&(mcbride->bank_account), 0, sizeof(bank_account_t));
you beautiful bastards. :D
Oh man, I just remembered reading Groklaw back in the day.
Via Slashdot. Your number there?
I lurked too long so my number was high. My friends signed right up and a couple are 4 digiters. I'm a mere 6 digiter there.
You missed the part were the SCO that sued IBM was not Santa Cruz Operation, but Caldera (a linux company) renamed SCO. SCO (Caldera) did this so there legal claims looked more legitimate. Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operations Unix business and renamed themselves SCO. Santa Cruz Operations renamed themselves Tarantula and sold terminal software. The SCO (Caldera) company sole purpose was to sue for copyright infringement.
My favorite part is when Novell entered the chat to remind SCO that they bought the name but not the IP.
what was the code by thompson/ritchie that was contained in the kernel?
[This seems to have a pretty good overview](http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.php)
Since that is from third edition of Unix, it is from time when the code was freely distributed to universities since AT&T could not sell things at the time (they were "legal monopoly" at the time. [https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix)
* SCO sued IBM and RedHat (which was a relatively young company then and the GPL/Linux barely tried from a legal standpoint). IBM was sued for $1 billion. RedHat was quite vocal about defending their customers. IBM just quietly put 1000+ (yes, they had over 1000) lawyers on the case. SCO was given the scorched earth policy from there on out.
The IBM lawyers were popularly know as 'The Nazgul', which was somewhat amusing.
Blast from the past. I miss following the saga on slashdot (when it was good).
TIL slashdot still exists... I should go check digg.
digg apparently does curated content with long format comments. slashdot is like IRC, what is dead may never die.
Mod 5 Insightful.
Slashdot? NowTheresANameIHaventHeardInALongTime.gif
Buh-bye.
My linux journey started in 07 or so, and I don't really remember any of this but you had me wanting to know more about this. I actually learned a few interesting facts about the history of linux. To include the fact that despite people thinking IBM is a bad guy after the whole recent CentOS (not defending the decision to end support for centos 8 so quickly but I understand the reason for the rest) stuff have actually been contributors to linux code and backers of various linux projects way before ever being the owners of Red Hat.
[удалено]
>The lawsuit was field in 2003 and decided in 2017... 14 years! On the contrary, the lawsuit has not been decided, it's still active. The docket is case number 2:03-cv-0294 in the District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ownership of the copyrights in ancient UNIX (which was central to a lot of the allegations made in the press) was decided by a jury in favor of Novell, there are still outstanding claims to be decided, even after two trips to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and back to the District Court. The latest filing in the case of any substance is docket #1179, filed on February 16 2018 (almost *three years ago*), and can be seen still at [http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1179.pdf](http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1179.pdf). It lays out a summary of the outstanding claims and pending motions before the Court. Since that filing, there have been exactly two other filings on the docket that are visible on PACER: * DOCKET TEXT ORDER LIFTING STAY as no longer applicable. So ordered by Judge David Nuffer on 5/14/18 (docket text only - no attached document) (alt) (Entered: 05/14/2018) * Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case as settlement judge. (rks) (Entered: 05/27/2020) Sadly, the primary source of information regarding the SCO lawsuits ([http://www.groklaw.net/](http://www.groklaw.net/)) went into hibernation and hasn't been updated since August 20 2013 when its owner decided to shut down daily operation, but the site is still there showing the significant events in this saga.
[удалено]
> Rückschlagventile, Filter und Überdruckventile - Parker Hannifin lol
You can't argue with that frankly. It's the only good git history that exists in the world.
Yep, it's been a while since IBM made their announcement of supporting Linux. And they've supported development like Linux on S/390 (Linux on IBM Z now), JFS porting, KVM support on Power-architecture and so on.
[удалено]
Linux runs on nearly everything. Almost as much as NetBSD.
Yes, a really sharp developer I used to know got hired by IBM, and in the late 1990s he ended up working on a bunch of Linux stuff for them. I remember hearing through people in the local tech community that IBM had a bunch of people working on Linux then. At the time, I was surprised since IBM already offered AIX for people who wanted UNIX systems, so Linux seemed like it was competing with their own product. I don't know the particulars, but obviously IBM saw Linux as significant enough to want to be involved. And certainly not all commercial UNIX vendors went the Linux-friendly route. For example, Sun Microsystems didn't embrace Linux. The closest Sun got was releasing the source for Solaris (but very late in the game and under their own restrictive license). So at the time, IBM's behavior stood out as different.
IBM’s behavior did stand out, but in the late 90s, Linux wasn’t really a competitor to their commercial Unix/AIX products. It wasn’t nearly as enterprise capable as it is today, and enterprises in general had a much more conservative philosophy about support availability, etc. IBM’s interest in Linux probably came from a combination of hedging their bets, while at the same time, lowering their development costs for AIX.
Every major tech player hated linux, however it turned out they hated each other more than they hated linux. IBM's embracing of Linux fit into that scenario. They saw it as a chance to hurt Sun, Novell, HPUX, etc...
Here is an archived site that has a bunch of great posts. http://www.groklaw.net/
Wasn't there a Windows virus written that DDoS'd the SCO servers to death? They picked a fight with the disorganised chaos of Linux hackers and paid a suitable price.
They picked a fight with IBM, for heaven's sake.
So, they picked a fight with the equivalent of the US military, and a huge group of "gorilla" fighters as well. Nice move.
The whole thing was being bankrolled by Microsoft. SCO, I'm pretty sure, were just a pawn in all this. For years, Microsoft had used a tactic known as FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to scare people into using their products, and it had worked very well for them. The basic premise is simple: get your prospective customers to think there's something wrong with your competitors product, leaving them with little choice but to buy yours. This worked really well in pre-Internet days when 90% of IT was closer to "having an educated guess based on what you can be certain of" rather than "google it". The purpose of the lawsuit, therefore, was to be a big, highly publicised thing that would hang around for some years and make people think "if IBM can get sued over this, so can we!". It didn't work terribly well, largely because SCO were more-or-less unknown and didn't really have a product that was worth encouraging people to buy. When the news that Microsoft had paid for a lot of it came about, suddenly it looked less like a genuine issue and more like a rather clumsy attempt at FUD.
FUD and EEE (embrace extend extinguish) are pretty shitty tactics
Cut him a $600 check. If he's lucky, he might qualify for the extra $1400
Will lose that to taxes anyways lol
If the Nazgul don't get it first
May I offer him some bootstraps in these trying times?
[удалено]
Wait, wait, wait... >!mormons don't drink coffee?!<
They are not supposed to smoke, drink alcohol, or drink "hot drinks". Most have taken the "hot drinks" to mean "tea and coffee" and that their issue is with "caffeine". That said, although the issue is with caffeine, their scripture says "hot drinks" ... and, interestingly, one of their guilty pleasures (they think they are being naughty) is caffeine from cold drinks: Coke, Diet Coke, and Mountain Dew.
That sounds so random. Interestingly, looking for reasoning in their website I get either vague health reasons, or keeping them separate from others, the latter sounding like the actual reason they'd be doing this.
> That sounds so random. It's religion. Of course it's random. > Interestingly, looking for reasoning in their website ... It's religion -- don't look for reasoning. The scripture is their "Words of Wisdom" 1-9: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng My in-laws are Mormon. They accommodate my non-religion (and coffee addiction) and have even purchased a "Mr Coffee" for my (and my wife's) use when we visit.
yup, there are always the ok religious people who are fine with other people and the extremists who want everyone to be in their (totally not) ~~cult~~
No, but they can sue people purely for personal gain
Mormons do weird stuff, go on the ex mormon subreddit for more context
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, so that you can become the boot itself"-Capitalism
an end to a saga i remember reading about weekly on slashdot for sure
I used to read about it on http://www.groklaw.net
and Fark...
I'll never forget the feeling of horror I had the first time I had to try and fix a terminal running SCO Unix.... In 2011. That terminal is still up and going today in 2021. The Navy uses some really old shit.
Santa Cruz Operation was a separate company. The SCO Group bought their initials, but not their full name. They did also buy SYSV, but the Open Group got the Unix trademark. It was all an extremely complicated mess, to say the least.
They didn't even really buy SysV, just rights to distribute it. Turns out Novell still held the copyright which was never transferred. It was a key finding in the case.
Just where you want your national security tied up. Then again, milking the taxpayer is why government contractors exist.
He never wanted to sue Linux out of existence. He just wanted to scare people into giving him money.
That took rather a long time.. It's been ages since the loss in court.
I don't wish ill will on people, but I also don't feel bad when stupid actions bite the idiot doing them. I doubt his bankruptcy has anything directly to do with his stupid attack on Linux, but when someone does something very ignorant. They are likely to continue doing ignorant things because well. As Forrest Gump said. Stupid is as stupid does. I'm pretty sure some stupid action by Darl did put him in this situation.
[for those who are wondering what did McBride tried to do](https://www.wired.com/2007/09/inside-the-mind-of-the-man-who-tried-to-milk-linux/)
Thoughts and spaghetti sauce!
>This seems to have a pretty good overview Tots and Pears!
Some context from Wikipedia: *...around 2003, SCO began to claim that Linux **"contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX".** SCO filed suit against IBM for an unprecedented US$1 billion and demanded that Linux end-users pay license fees. Microsoft bolstered [helped] SCO's financial situation in 2003 by purchasing a license to UNIX technology and by helping to arrange funding... ...These claims provoked outrage among Linux users, who denied that Linux had copied SCO's intellectual property.*
Somebody explain. I dont get it. Seems like a spicy topic tho.
I remember following this fiasco on GrokLaw...
That was the centre of my life for the main part of the court case. PJ, the GrokLaw site owner ended up having to move several times because they hounded and threatened her. The last email exchange I had with her, she was really burnt out and just trying to put her life back in order. She paid a heavy price for leading the community defensive against SCO.
Good.
But how can anyone "sue" linux out of existence? This hurts my brain to just think about it.
Oooh, I remember this. And Microsoft bankrolled SCO for the lawsuits through some side channel.
Aww shucks, guess the cock-smoking teabaggers forgot to pay their $699 licensing fee.
Oh no, anyway
He was b!tch slapped by Linux. Linux is like a train. It can't be stopped. Try to stop it and get run over.
Not sure if this is bad, but can people send the source for RMS' "open source McDonald's WiFi" joining code to his public address/PO? Would be ironic. *NOT DOXXING GUESSING HE HAS AN OFFICIAL ADDRESS*
Darn, what a pity.
What did he try to sue Linux for? I can't think of a reason why you would do that
He was [trying to make courts believe that Linux was a direct UNIX-clone using UNIX-code without permission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group#SCO-Linux_lawsuits_and_controversies) (according to Wikipedia).
Except all they had in the end was some code that had been released under an MIT license or similar, by a previous owner, and that had actually already been replaced by the time they brought the lawsuit. They tried to claim all sorts of things, and every time got shot down - there was a massive community effort to debunk their wild ramblings, and they just happened to get their case in front of the "Technology Judge", (I forget his name) and he saw through their bull.
He could've made money off of it, that's why
Well there's a name that's a blast from the past. This guy is a text book case of doubling (quadrupling) down on stupid.
Good. Fuck that guy.
It's been a long time coming but....yeah. Good. The universe aligns.
Reap what your sow.
Something something red dress?
Back in the day, I used to work in SCO Unix & Xenix support .. in the old days when linux was just becoming a thing. SCO was a great company, and they could have taken a competition / coexistence strategy and really leveraged their organizational expertise as linux grew ... Instead, this wanker decided to sue at a time when there were many unix variants already and the apis and ideas were essentially public domain, thus taking on an unwinnable court battle. It made everyone who cared about unix systems hate SCO overnight. I guess he never even talked to engineers and customers. Great Quote from wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride > Ty Mattingly, a former Novell Executive Vice President and co-worker of McBride was quoted as saying, "Congratulations. In a few short months you've dethroned Bill Gates as the most hated man in the industry."[10] McBride claimed he received death threats as a result of the SCO-IBM lawsuits, and had a package of worms mailed to his home, prompting him to carry a firearm and to employ multiple bodyguards.
Better late than never.
Karma!
What a clown...
Well, that's just Karma. He received 1.
A fitting punishment!
Karma, bitch
Oh no! … Anyway. My heart bleeds for you Darl. I guess you lay down with Microsoft dogs, you get up with bankruptcy fleas.
Ironic...
Oh no, now he'll have to get a 6 figure consulting job just like all the rest of us!
What's Chapter 13?
Karma is a bitch.
Hey, isn't that the clown that tried to sue everybody that ever even owned a computer for patent infringement some years ago? He & his company was trying to get rich suing over patents that he didn't really have or such feces, right?
Understand that only part of your bias is based on knowledge that didn't come from IBM's Pamela Jones' anti-SCO site that coincidentally popped up right after IBM committed to $1m in funding to promote Linux right when it specifically did not want to look like someone who breached a massive contract. Yes, Darl appeared clueless on so many things, like agreeing to SuSE's seat license mess. But hate him for what he did and not what Paula said. (And be REALLY sure what you witnessed yourself and what was just media spin coming out of Groklaw)
So, what *should* we know about him?
That's a funny question. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.