SCO vs. Linux: New investor rescues SCO from bankruptcy

... yep.

As SJVN concludes in one of his latest blogs 'SCO rises from the dead', http://blogs.computerworld.com/sco_rises_from_the_dead :

Quoting:We don't know who's behind this latest SCO buyout craziness, but it seems a safe bet that at the bottom of it all we'll find friends of Microsoft. There's simply no sane business reason to keep SCO's anti-Linux litigation in play except to spread a little anti-Linux FUD, and Microsoft is the only company that has any real interest in seeing that happen.

Maybe this will turn out as good conjecture.

Quoting:> The court could simply reject the sale terms, thus forcing the dissolution of SCO.

Yes, they could. However, if the buying entity is actually offering to make good on all of SCO's debts, they're unlikely to do so.

I could make the same offer, but I'd be laughed out of the court. (Not that I would, in a million years.)

I hope the lawyers for IBM and Novell demand to see the money in escrow before they consider withdrawing objections. Without that, they could only be described as "incompetent."

> I hope the lawyers for IBM and Novell demand to see the money in escrow before they consider withdrawing objections.

Oh, I think even the court will want quite a bit of proof that the buyer is capable and willing to pay before they consider the sale. Then IBM and Novell get their say. So, yes, I think an escrow account requirement is a certainty.

Whatever the case may be -- even if this buyer with the big money _doe$_ manage to keep SCO afloat for the near-term -- I hope that eventually SCO and its allied FUD-mongering agents _will_ get buried for good! 2c

Quoting:Oh, I think even the court will want quite a bit of proof that the buyer is capable and willing to pay before they consider the sale.

As much as I'd like to share your optimism, the eye-witness reports on Groklaw suggest otherwise. The court is pretty much putty in SCO's hands, and SCO knows it. That's why I'm hoping the lawyers for IBM and Novell will be more on-the-ball.

Quoting:Microsoft is the only company that has any real interest in seeing that happen.

They're the only people who still consider Linux a "threat", instead of a profit vector.

> They're the only people who still consider Linux a "threat", instead of a profit vector.

Well, Microsoft is just about the last "great white hope" for proprietary operating systems in general. Just about every other company has embraced a Linux/*nix style kernel based future or died. It may take years, but inevitably Microsoft will fall too.

Quoting:Just about every other company has embraced a Linux/*nix style kernel based future or died.

Of course *nix doesn't necessarily mean FOSS. It can be closed/proprietary as well.

Quoting:It may take years, but inevitably Microsoft will fall too.

I wish I shared your optimism. I just don't see it.

> I wish I shared your optimism. I just don't see it.

Never say never. Nothing lasts forever. In the 1960s to 1980s if you had told someone that IBM would have a quarter where they lost more than a billion dollars you'd have been looked at like you were nuts. But in the early 1990s it happened.

Now, IBM didn't die, but they had to seriously remake themselves and they are not the same company they used to be.

So maybe I should replace "die" with "die or rebuild themselves".

You can think of lots of other examples. In the 1950s or 1960s who would have thought that GM would ever declare bankruptcy? But as history has shown things change and the rules of a market don't stay the same forever. The Roman Empire fell. Disruptive things come along that can turn things upside down.

Every so often you see some signs that there are weak spots in Microsoft's armor. And they are a big, aggressive bully that have made a lot of enemies. Sooner or later a dagger will find one of those gaps. Time will tell what it will be, but its almost inevitable that Microsoft will meet their "Waterloo". It may be Open Source that does it, or it may be some other competitor.

Anyway, I hope that if you can't see it Microsoft can't either until the blade is twisting and their vision all goes black.

> So maybe I should replace "die" with "die or rebuild themselves".

I think Microsoft is very likely to rebuild themselves once the current generation of management leaves, but not until.

@jdixon

I agree -- As long as Steve Ballmer is there in particular I don't think they will be able to rebuild themselves. My personal opinion is that he's actually responsible for more of Microsoft's reprehensible track record of behavior than Bill Gates. The fact that they are still up to their same old dirty tricks even after Bill has ostensibly retired from day to day actively running the business is a lot of why I believe that. Once Ballmer's gone I think Microsoft may have a chance to turn themselves around, but it depends on how pervasively their culture that promotes unethical behavior has permeated into the next layer or two of management.

Oh... its also worth noting that predictions of Microsoft's eventual demise aren't likely realistic within the next year, or two or even five. They've still got huge amounts of cash, inertia and momentum. I'm talking in practical "geological timescales" relative to the computer industry. Which means that it could be 10, 20 or more years down the road. That may seem like a long time down the road for a Gen-Yer, but even a lot of Gen-Xer techies may still be active in the job market when it happens.

A lot can happen in 10 or 20 years. I don't think many people could have predicted current trends in technology 10 or 20 years ago.

I know a writer who wrote pretty much what we call "the Internet" today into his 1975 book, "The Probability Broach". He called it "the Com".

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

You found an excuse to link something which advertises itself as a Libertarian political tract. You can't resist, can you? Thanks but no thanks.

Caitlyn,

At least I don't just spout tired campus socialist-youth slogans. I said the writer had "predicted" what came to pass ~20 years after he wrote it.

I then point to a free version of the text. Gee, just like you going off about the political and governmental makeup of Jordan, and whining that you think it's "on topic".

If you don't like it, you are welcome not to read it. Please don't crucify yourself in the process expecting pity from me for what you choose to do, pity is the last thing you inspire.

Pity? Me? Mope. I do find you pitiful, however, If you can't tell the difference between an on topic post and posting political tracts you have a serious problem.

You're merely demonstrating that you get to post anything you want.

Not so. Your posts had one and only one purpose: to stir up something and pick a fight. I think most people are bright enough to see right through that. You have posted nothing related to the topic at hand or even vaguely on topic. You're the one posting "poor poor pitiful me" and claiming to be singled out for your political views. Maybe it's your approach rather than your views that are the problem. Did you ever think of that?

Nobody wants LXer to be a political website with an agenda except for maybe you. Enough!

> You found an excuse to link something...

> ...between an on topic post and posting political tracts you have a serious problem.

It's a link, Caitlyn, not a post. Links don't violate the TOS, posts do. I don't think Scott and company worry too much about what links you provide, as long as they're not to illegal or pornographic material.

And you should know better than to follow Bob's links by now. If he considers something worth linking to, it's almost certain you won't like it. While I hate to say it, given that I do have a bias in the matter, I think in this case Bob is correct and you're wrong.