Market slide: SCO Group's stock falls to $2.28 per share

That would better reflect the value of SCOX’s position.

Also, after the minus sign addition the decimal point needs to be moved at least one if not two spaces to the right.

If this keeps up it'll hit $1,- soon. IIRC hitting $1,- means you get delisted, right?

No. They can do a reverse stock split to keep the per share price above a dollar. Basically, a 1:2 reverse sock split would replace each 2 shares with 1 share of stock at twice the price. So if you own 1000 shares at $2.27 today, you would have 500 shares at $4.54 after the reverse split.

> [Shareholders should sue for mismanagement. It's sad to see a good company in the hands of idiots. - dcparris]

Dean... err... Don,

Not sure about that. Those that rode the SCO train from $0.60 to $20.50 should have no complaints. And by the time SCOX hit $20.50 there was plenty of evidence out there, for anyone who cared to look, that SCO's position was shaky to say the least. The problem with stock trading, in my opinion, is that it puts investing in a company in the same category as buying an electric shaver.

If a friend asked you to invest in their business, you'd give that a lot of thought. You'd ask questions. You'd take the papers home and study them.

But when investing in stocks, which is the same thing really, people will do it based on tips, and even less solid info.

I say the people who rode SCOX down from $20.50 to the current $2.30 should have looked before they leaped.

Edit: And SCOX is mostly owned by insiders, who do things for, well who knows what reasons?

O.k. dcparris = Don dinotrac = Dean :-)

I agree that people need to know when to fold 'em, know when to hold 'em, and know when to run. In this case, they should have been running. I'm sure the only ones still holding stock are the management and their secretaries (maybe). That means they would have to sue themselves. That would be fun to watch, kind of like the 3 stooges.

I think SCO could have survived or even thrived had it been managed properly. I truly believe it was horribly mismanaged. I have heard pretty good things about the SCO Group's OS, even from those who were fairly rabidly against SCO. Pursuing a lawsuit as a business strategy, when there was a real software project to run, is, imo, not merely negligence; it's intentional mismanagement. Hence my comment.

Quoting:I have heard pretty good things about the SCO Group's OS, even from those who were fairly rabidly against SCO.

You have? Not me. It was supposed to be very stable but that's about it. It lacked pretty much any more advanced features that you would find in Linux or other commercial Unices. One of the reasons their Unix business was doing poorly even before the anti-Linux madness.

Mind you, I only heared this. I've never used SCO Unix myself.

Sander and Don,

In the mid 90's SCO really did have a good OS. Don't underestimate the value of stable. Modern Linux does not match OpenServer stability. Things started turning sour when they bought Unixware. Openserver stagnated as they focused their attention upon a kernel that was technically superior but never went anywhere commercially. At least not for SCO.

Old SCO gave up on their OS division and Caldera bought it.

So then a company that thought they understood proprietary, but really didn't, controlled SCO. Not surprisingly, they goofed it all up.

And then those guys, whom the community loved to hate, got thrown out. (I'd give anything to have Ransom Love back.)

So for the last few years we've had Darl and the gang.

So... who do you sue?

sbergman27, and the part I'm dying to know the real story about is why were Darl and his henchpeople brought in in the first place? Those are not the folks you want when your real intent is a thriving Linux/Unix business. I want to know who is pulling the strings.

Have no idea if it's relevant, but with companies who's backers (mostly bankers) think it's dieing, I've seen them bring in the same kind of nasty gang again and again. The object is to kill it off at a profit to the banks, regardless of the peripheral damage.

TC: I want to know who is pulling the strings.

As I understand it from Groklaw, Canopy (Yarro) was pulling the strings. Now who pulled Canopy's strings to force a change of direction and how those strings were pulled -- that's what I want to know. To me, the How is slightly more important than the Who because I can think of a couple of who's but I'd like to know HOW it was done.

Don K.

Some interesting stuff @ http://practical-tech.com/cyber_cynic_the_microsoft_sco_conn... http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,4248,1102480,00.as... That was just a quick google.I'm sure some more digging would pull up a pretty good list of who's pulling what strings and how/why.

What is Ransom Love doing these days?

I met him at the Caldea's Linuxworld booth back when Caldera was doing Great Things -- including a very nifty installer for the day.

Not only did I meet him, but he was handing things out, answering questions, and almost (not quite) mistakable for just another Caldera rep.

Not sure. Back at the time of his ousting, a reason was given. It was somewhat more believable than "wanting to spend more time with his family". He was going to head up something. Was it the 'B' Ark?