What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

IceDigger

Founder
Staff member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

They claim that linux uses some programing from them and they are suing IBM because of it. It's a really messed up thing. Now they want people to pay $1400 for linux instead of it being free now.
 

mal

Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

That's $1400 per processor for server licences.

They're planning on cheaper embeded and desktop licences.

They'd have to damn well prove their case in court before I'd pay (if I used Linux).
 
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

I think one of the biggest draws of linux is the price tag. Maybe SCO is sitting in bill gates back pocket right now, huh :huh ?

In any case, I'm sure someone will figure out some way to continue to have linux be cheap and not have to pay SCO.

On a side note, this doesn't really affect me... cause I use windows... cause I'm too lazy to use linux and too lazy to get it working with all my hardware and stuff lol.
 

mal

Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

Originally posted by Scared0o0Rabbit@Aug 6, 2003 @ 03:47 PM

On a side note, this doesn't really affect me... cause I use windows... cause I'm too lazy to use linux and too lazy to get it working with all my hardware and stuff lol.
Me too. ;)
 

googlefest1

New Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

i agree with what does that article say -- i admit i skimed it but it seemed to be talking about 3 diferent things that were somewhat related but with out enough info for people not familiar with whats going on there to figure it out

so the prossesor from sco has linux embedded ?

or does the ibm prossesor have sco software embedded that runs on linux ?

if they dont want to be open source then why did they make it easily available
 

ExCyber

Staff member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

Who in the world is SCO?
SCO was the Santa Cruz Operation, a company that created (among other things) a PC-compatible Unix variant called UnixWare. In 2001 they sold their OS/Unix division to a company called Caldera. Caldera execs decided that they liked the SCO name and started using it, rebranding as "SCO Group".

To be blunt, this whole "Linux violates our IP" bid is a pile of BS. It's blindingly obvious that SCO doesn't actually want any "infringement" to stop (otherwise they would have told the kernel developers and the public exactly what was infringing), they merely want to make things as much of a pain in the ass as possible for anyone who doesn't give them money. Linux developers and distributors won't stand for this kind of tomfoolery, and are basically telling SCO to put up or shut up. SCO seems to be interested in doing neither, and there's a good chance they'll largely be ignored unless they try to start suing users, at which point they become the bad guy and their business goes straight (well, further) into the crapper. It's been speculated by industry analysts that SCO doesn't want this plan to actually go through at all and that they're trying to be such a tremendous pain in the ass that IBM will just buy them out to end the struggle.
 
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

haha, so SCO is just in it to be one giant pain in the ass? What do they have to gain? Anything?
 

ExCyber

Staff member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

What do they have to gain? Anything?
The two main speculations seem to be:

1) An IBM buyout.

2) The execs win by selling their stock and cashing in on this facade of viability.
 
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

hmmmm, well I hope they get nothin cuz they are bein dumb about it. If they were smart about i then I would say more power to em, hehe.
 

Curtis

Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

Ugh...this has to be one of the worst cases of money grabbing I've heard of. Take, for example, this quote:

SCO has not detailed its infringement claims, but the company has shown a portion of its infringed Unix code to people willing to sign non-disclosure agreements. Haff claims if SCO did detail all the allegedly infringed code, developers could write new code to replace it, defusing the situation.

Why would replacing the infringing code not be an acceptable solution? Surely it addresses all the issues, and would save SCO a packet in legal fees. Perhaps they are worried about what people may discover about the "infringements". :rolleyes:
 

gameboy900

New Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

No they are worried that if their code is removed they will loose a potential licensing revenue stream from it.
 

Gaz_2_k

New Member
What do you think of SCO's new business strategy?

Micromartalso published a small artical on this in this weeks mag.

i'll edit this post 2moro wit the artical it's self.....can't now.....to hot/sweaty/can't be bothered.....sorry! :smash
 
Top