Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix.

[Capt. Mac]

- Kieran O'Shaughnessy, Director of SCO Australia/New Zealand (2004)

[Giant Speck]

- Kieran O'Shaughnessy, Director of SCO Australia/New Zealand

I don't even know who that is.

[Majorix]

I don't even know who that is.

Me neither. Let him speak his mind :D

[Giant Speck]

Me neither. Let him speak his mind :D

I didn't say he couldn't speak his mind. I was just showing indifference to what he said.

[Capt. Mac]

SCO is a company that has been filing lawsuits against Linux companies since early this decade. They recently lost a lawsuit against Novell: they owe $2.54 million plus interest. :lolflag:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081124-final-judgment-sco-owes-novell-millions-plus-interest.html

[Paqman]

:lolflag:

Sounds like someone is trying to drum up publicity by flinging some outlandish statements out into medialand.

[kaspar_silas]

He is obviously talking about existence in a philosophical way. Whilst realizing this I also realized (in a further moment of clarity) that he doesn't exist he is just an unlicensed version of his dad.


:(

[wersdaluv]

k. fine

[bufsabre666]

oh noes!!!!!11111 i knew getting an os through torrents was bad!

[Sealbhach]

I was wondering why I kept getting this error message...

[Toffeeapple]

He is obviously talking about existence in a philosophical way. Whilst realizing this I also realized (in a further moment of clarity) that he doesn't exist he is just an unlicensed version of his dad.


:(

Kudos to you! coffee just came out of my nose.

[I-75]

I was wondering why I kept getting this error message...

That was a classic....lmao

[derekr44]

When I saw the topic subject, I thought... hmmm... that's interesting.

Then I saw that it was said by an SCO businessman.

That pretty much explains it. <rolleyes>

[red_Marvin]

So... is he saying that there exist no unlicensed unix versions then?

[karellen]

He is obviously talking about existence in a philosophical way. Whilst realizing this I also realized (in a further moment of clarity) that he doesn't exist he is just an unlicensed version of his dad.


:(

:lolflag: this is gold

[grazed]

yeah these people are crazy! it's funny to read up on the stories about them though.

it seems like they feel that unix-like OS's are stealing thunder from them in the corporate world.

[handy]

Didn't MS slip a few million dollars SCO's way to get the whole fiasco rolling?

[doas777]

bye bye SCO.... watch your step on the way out.

[Grant A.]

SCO already went bankrupt, after losing the case to Novell. During the Novell case the judge ruled that Novell had never officially transferred the UNIX IP to SCO correctly, and that SCO had to pay fees to Novell and Sun because SCO was never officially allowed to license something it never had. On top of that, they had a version of Caldera Linux licensed under the GPL, which voided the whole patent ordeal.

[Eisenwinter]

lol.

Linux is a Unix clone.

;)

[zmjjmz]

Well SCO just filed an appeal.
Again?

[Skripka]

Well SCO just filed an appeal.
Again?

Now where did I put my funny dictionary of Linus Torvalds quotes-talking about SCO.....


"They are smoking crack."

"I allege that SCO is full of it."

"There are literally several levels of SCO being wrong. And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be wrong."
.
.
.
.

[toupeiro]

SCO might as well become a patent headhunting company, because they are spending so much money in legal fee's, they certainly don't have the budget to put out anything worth a damn and actually compete, and they suck at that slightly less than their former ventures.

Windows doesn't really exist either. Conceptually, its a blatent, now evolved ripoff of MAC-OS and OS/2 Warp.... And .. more and more ... LINUX! ... you know .. That other OS that doesn't really exist.... see: powershell (http://www.computerperformance.co.uk/powershell/powershell_alias.htm)

:rolleyes:

[toupeiro]

Duplicate :(

[sdowney717]

SCO, "the bad guys of IT", "we are not a litigation company"

"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.

"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;97798672;fp;16;fpid;0

So what Linux are they talking about, Have any of you used IBM linux?

[sdowney717]

"Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence. "

What linux users would this be? You and me?

[Giant Speck]

Didn't MS slip a few million dollars SCO's way to get the whole fiasco rolling?

Yes. In 2003. Microsoft purchased a UNIX license from SCO, which bolstered their dwindling financial situation.

However, this is more of a SCO vs. Linux thing, and not a Microsoft vs. Linux thing.

[EdThaSlayer]

Interesting. I never knew that. Even if it was true(well, it isn't an "unlicensed version of unix" as it's based on unix but not well, "unix").
Let this guy speak his mind, remember to respect his freedom of opinion! :KS

[sydbat]

Interesting. I never knew that. Even if it was true(well, it isn't an "unlicensed version of unix" as it's based on unix but not well, "unix").
Let this guy speak his mind, remember to respect his freedom of opinion! :KSFreedom of opinion is one thing. Litigation (and a litigious nature) are another.

[Skripka]

Yes. In 2003. Microsoft purchased a UNIX license from SCO, which bolstered their dwindling financial situation.

However, this is more of a SCO vs. Linux thing, and not a Microsoft vs. Linux thing.

True dat, but SCO is done and won't be around much longer.

When they undertook this litigation path, they bit off more than they could chew....and once the courts started calling SCO's IP claims BS (Linux is an unlicensed Unix etc etc)-their stock lost all value......last I knew SCO has yet to come up with a way out of bankruptcy.

[Giant Speck]

True dat, but SCO is done and won't be around much longer.

When they undertook this litigation path, they bit off more than they could chew....and once the courts started calling SCO's IP claims BS-their stock lost all value......last I knew SCO has yet to come up with a way out of bankruptcy.

I think it's funny that SCO even sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrystler.

And I was slightly wrong. Microsoft didn't buy a UNIX license from SCO. They bought it from Caldera Systems, a predecessor of SCO.

[Capt. Mac]

"Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence. "

What linux users would this be? You and me?

I doubt they would be interested in end-users. I mean, how much money can you really get from the average desktop Linux user?

They were likely referring to enterprise users. SCO sent threatening letters to Lehman Brothers (a Red Hat customer) in December '03 and January '04. Lehman Brothers basically responded with 'take it up with Red Hat LOL.'
http://www.cbronline.com/news/scos_linux_user_deadline_puts_lehman_brothers_in_s potlight

[Closed_Port]

And I was slightly wrong. Microsoft didn't buy a UNIX license from SCO. They bought it from Caldera Systems, a predecessor of SCO.
Oh, they apparently did sooooooo much more...

The SCO Group received a large dose of cash and a vote of confidence for its anti-Linux campaign last October when BayStar Capital arranged a $50 million investment in the company.

BayStar, a private investment firm in Larkspur, Calif., put $20 million of its own money into SCO, which is based outside of Salt Lake City, and convinced the Royal Bank of Canada to chip in another $30 million. The fact that BayStar made its investment after a referral from Microsoft, a Linux antagonist, only added to the impression of coordinated support for SCO and its strategy.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE1DB173AF931A15757C0A9629C8B 63&pagewanted=all


Buried in IBM's recent motion for summary judgment against SCO is a Declaration from BayStar general partner Larry Goldfarb. Near the beginning of the long-running legal soap opera, BayStar invested $50 million in SCO. In exchange for their investment, BayStar received 20,000 shares of preferred stock in SCO.

In his declaration, Goldfarb testifies that former Microsoft senior VP for corporate development and strategy Richard Emerson discussed "a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061008-7932.html

Bye, bye, SCO! :guitar::guitar:

[Yownanymous]

People like this disgust me. Got to say one thing: You're never going to win so stop trying you pathetic little (insert four lettered word here).

[Grant A.]

SCO is publically traded, why doesn't IBM just go and buy up 100% of their stock and shut them down?

[doas777]

lol.

Linux is a Unix clone.

;)

incorrect. Linux is a reimplementation of the minix kernel, not Bell or HP UX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX

[sdowney717]

these tactics sound like FUD, the same crap MS tries on linux.
Sort of like an extortionist philosophy, pay up or we sue, or like the mafia, pay up or we will ruin you.
In a sense attacks like this are a nusisance organized criminal activity and perhaps a counter suit for damages or libel against linux if won would silence them forever.

[Kernel Sanders]

- Kieran O'Shaughnessy, Director of SCO Australia/New Zealand (2004)

When I clicked this thread I was expecting a troll post LOL :lolflag:

[Coreigh]

I was too lazy to read all the posts but did anyone point out that "Linux" refers ONLY to the kernal and not to the installation as an "Operating System"? It takes a combination of a kernal and a collection of applications to comprise and "Operating System."

Here is wiki link on the discussion, some say argument, about the idea;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

[Koori23]

He is obviously talking about existence in a philosophical way. Whilst realizing this I also realized (in a further moment of clarity) that he doesn't exist he is just an unlicensed version of his dad.


:(

Speaking in the same metaphysical context.. I have to also say..

--- "There is no spoon"----

This whole SCO v IBM thing is really simple. Disregard the UNIX copyrights to Novell, the lack of evidence etc..

What SCO was trying to do was capitalize on the "fear factor" of a seemingly untested business model. They attempted what boils down to corporate espionage in a very public sense. Inject fear about a product and tote your own product as the "saviour" that is honest and legit.

[doas777]

all i can say, is hopefully In Re Bilski will destroy US software patents entirely. if nothing else, they've been signifigantly weakened as is.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

have fun,
franklin

[cmay]

I think it's funny that SCO even sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrystler.

And I was slightly wrong. Microsoft didn't buy a UNIX license from SCO. They bought it from Caldera Systems, a predecessor of SCO.does microsoft have a UNIX license. reading from the homepage of unix there is no mention of microsoft being registered but there is mac and solaris.

[doas777]

actually, it's my understanding that MS does their builds on unix systems. may be wrong though.

[cmay]

http://www.unix.org/questions_answers.html

i do not think that microsoft has anything to do with unix at all. i think that maybe they paid for something to call something something unix branded but i cant imagine they are registered in any way. thats why i asked. no irony intended.