UnXis Group To Acquire SCO 131
Evil-G writes "In an email on Friday, SCO informed its partners that UnXis Inc. was chosen as the successful bidder for SCO's Unix software business on 26 January. The slightly convoluted phrasing is probably due to SCO's current reorganization under Chapter 11. On 16 February, the transaction is to be submitted for approval to the bankruptcy court where SCO's case is pending."
SCO has a software business? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought they were just patent trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:SCO has a software business? (Score:4, Informative)
The rot set in long before then. IIRC this started to blow up circa 2002, and by mid-2003 I was meeting people who'd never even used Unix professionally and had independently reached the conclusion that SCO were doing some very odd things.
IMV suing your customers is generally considered to be a Very Bad Idea. Suing your customers and then announcing this fact proudly to the press is... well, it's mind-boggling. Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone running a business would authorise a press release which essentially said "We're suing our customers". The only rational explanation is that there was something else - unrelated to SCOs continued business as an OS vendor - that was pushing Darl to do this.
I generally shy away from conspiracy theories because they almost inevitably end up with some absurdly convoluted idea that includes Elvis still being alive and in cahoots with Dracula - but it's really hard to avoid here.
Re:SCO has a software business? (Score:4, Informative)
Slight pedancy... they were copyright trolls. Nothing really to do with patents (if they were squabbling over patents, they might have had half a chance).
But yeah - they (as sibling pointed out) used to have some halfway decent products. I think it was around the time they sued a couple of their biggest customers (Chrysler and AutoZone) that their other customers began phasing out (with extreme prejudice) UnixWare, OpenLinux/OpenServer, and damned near everything else that SCO owned and/or sold.
By 2006 or so, about the only folks left giving any money to SCO was Microsoft (by proxy, and directly) and I think Sun Microsystems (licensing SysV bits for Solaris), though I think Sun did that last back in 2004 and pretty much stopped after that.
Re:SCO has a software business? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you will find that there is still a large installed base of SCO products in the various vertical markets. It's hard to change that sometimes.
None of that, of course, means that anyone is still paying for support...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO has a software business? (Score:4, Informative)
"Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is?"
Because it's not (any version of) GPL. Except the kernel it runs on (which is GPLv2), it is mostly Apache.:
"The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org. "
source: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html [android.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Still, you do have to admit that creating and releasing a huge amount of software under a different license is a good way to avoid the GPL3. So obviously avoiding GPL3 is a primary motivation behind Android.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, this is one of the most insightful posts I've read on /. in a long, LONG time.
As for TFA, just let them fricking die already.
Exactly. Throughout the years, people have posted long, time-consuming (both to write and to read) rants about SCO and how they keep hanging on and never going away, etc. Half the reason they stayed alive so long was they became almost a cause celebre thanks to the disproportionate attention lavished on them by the Linux/FOSS crowd and Groklaw. Hardly anyone outside these groups knew anything about SCO; nor would they ha
Re: (Score:2)
Notice anything...funny...about Android? Like the fact that there is not a spot of GPL V3 code to be found? Why do you think that is? I'll tell you, because thanks to "the TiVo trick" GPL V2 is about as worthless as can be. Hell you might as well release it all as BSD, because that is what's gonna happen anyway.
So... how is that a threat to Linux? Is Mac OS X a threat to *BSD?
Linus and other prominent Linux developers considered the GPL v3 and it was rejected. There are pros and cons with GPL v2, just like GPL v3, just like BSD license, etc. See e.g. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-vs-the-gplv3/1200 [zdnet.com] regarding tivoization:
The GPL v3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree, I'm just saying they made a conscious choice about it.
In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this), software patents are clearly the threat against Lin
Re: (Score:3)
I thought they were just patent trolls.
They sold servers and software for years before becoming patent trolls. They were once an IT company and some of their stuff is still around.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really, the old SCO became Tarantella and sold the name to the Caldera. Finally Tarantella got bought by Sun, now a part of Oracle. What a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Caldera or the real Santa Cruz?
SCO Group is not SCO, it is Caldera.
Re: (Score:2)
They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?
Re: (Score:3)
They owned linux? Were you under a rock for a decade?
No, Darl McBride is just posting on /. again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL
Before you get voted up, that is the whole point of having a limited company. I believe you call it something else in the US but the general idea's the same - the liability (ie. the assets that can be taken to pay the debts) is limited to what the company owns. The logic is that it encourages businesses because a man is much more likely to take risks if he's not going to lose all his assets if it all goes to pot.
Darl McBride owns his house. But it's not Darl McBride that's in financial trouble, it's his
Re:SCO has a software business? (Score:5, Informative)
They claimed that Linux has substantial amounts of Unix in it which gave them "control" of Linux in their fantasy world. The problems with this were threefold. 1/ that they never proved the presence of Unix code in Linux and 2/ They have repeatedly been ruled in court not to own the required copyrights to back up those claims 3/ The moment the claimed code was identified it would begin to be removed. The legal owner of those copyrights says Linux doesn't violate them.
So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.
Re: (Score:3)
So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.
Can't think why you'd want the Unixware and Openserver business. Unless you were getting it stupidly cheap and were going to use it to convert the few remaining Unixware/OpenServer customers to Linux (and bill them handsomely for the privilege).
Re: (Score:1)
claiming to own linux would be patent trolling
Re: (Score:3)
No. Not patent trolling. Microsoft has made those claims; SCO asserted it owned the copyrights behind code in Linux, and other insane theories of ownership.
Ballmer claimed 140+ patents over what the Linux kernel does... along with GNU utilities, the number could be in the thousands-- and in all probability, a math major's way of holding on to his goose that lays the golden eggs called Windows. In this way, Microsoft is patent trolling.... along with buying certain components of Novell's patent intellectual
I miss the old trolls... (Score:2)
That's because you are an ignorant cunt. They owned unix and linux you know.
I think he's just using it as an excuse to avoid paying his $699 license fee. Must be some sort of cock-smoking teabagger.
So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow looks like all that is left of SCO are lawsuits, debt and a pending appeal. You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix. My guess is they will do anything in their power to distance themselves from the SCO name.
Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to wonder why in the world anyone would want to buy the business division, considering the SCO name is poison to just about anyone who knows anything about Unix.
Maybe because they have a 3-letter domain name? Probably their most valuable asset ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm you may be on to something with that....3 letter domains are awfully hard to come by.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget 2-letter ones like HP [hp.com]. Too bad that they discontinued the HP15C. :(
Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I thought everyone was ready to move to IPv6. Even Windows now supports IPv6 properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Find any wireless router that supports DD-WRT. Install DD-WRT, and voila, you have a wireless router with IPv6 support [google.com].
I think cheapest of these routers go for something like $25 or $30 routinely.
Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they do still have customers who want/need support, updates (at least enough to keep it running on new hardware as their old hardware dies) licenses etc. That buisness is clearly worth something. How much is debatable but it's almost certainly not zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in that situation - we've got a proprietary point of sale system that a lot of our customers run, that was written for SCO OpenServer. To move to Linux would cost $7,000 - $15,000 in license fees for the license transfer, so they're staying on SCO. An SCO OpenServer 6 license is a lot cheaper than the Thoroughbred software stack it's written in.
It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities. I really can't complain about its stability either - that damn things just keep running, and the most we have to do is replace tape drives and fans every once in a blue moon...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem comes when IRS or your corresponding tax collection organization for your country decides that the system needs a certain feature.
Here in Sweden you must have a certified cash register [skatteverket.se] these days that frequently sends information about your sales to the tax authorities. All to try to trap the companies evading taxes - often restaurants.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bad system - the problem with SCO was never their technical abilities.
We have a few going as well running SCADA systems. It is more reliable than the field instruments that it reads from. The problem is that the entire system is just arsebackwards. Such as setting the date to our local timezone +10GMT. Because GMT-10 is of course the way you expect to write GMT+10 right? Anyone else knows a UNIX system which thinks the world turns in the opposite direction?
Re: (Score:2)
All of them.
Blame AT&T.
man TZ on linux:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
True. Even the fact that it is -or was- a public company has value, on the order of a few hundred $K - some private company that wants to become public without going through the IPO can save a bunch of money by a 'reverse buyout' - they get themselves 'bought' by the defunct public company, change the name, and they're off and running as a new company.
Re:So all SCO has left is lawsuits? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know of a large SCO customer who is running OpenServer 1.6 in a VM rather than pay for upgrading the thousands of systems to a version that can support modern hardware like sat a and USB.
All of this has happened before... (Score:4, Insightful)
And will happen again.
They tried once before and the judge blew their ship out of the water.
What makes their chances any better this time?
Re: (Score:3)
A different judge - one that can be bribed, but it may only take one that doesn't understand the concept of Open Source.
Don't forget that cases like these are executed by lawyers and they can be extremely sticky and slippery at the same time if they can sniff out a huge pile of money. They don't need to win the case to get the money - just get paid by the hour. A long case with a "customer" with little sense and deep pockets attracts lawyers like a pile of fresh cow dung attracts flies.
Re: (Score:3)
A different judge - one that can be bribed, but it may only take one that doesn't understand the concept of Open Source.
It's not a different judge. The previous UnXis deal was rejected by the same bankruptcy judge in DE that's being asked to look at this one. Furthermore, the reasons for rejecting the deal had (and have) nothing to do with Open Source, and everything to do with standard finances--something a bankruptcy judge generally has a decent grasp on.
In fact, almost nothing in any of TSCOG's cases (bankruptcy, Novell, IBM, RH, Autozone, etc.) hinges directly on anything to do with an understanding of Open Source. The
Re: (Score:1)
Doing it right.
The judges decided that SCO didn't own all of SVR4, which is true (but neither does Novell*,). It was never proven that SVR4 code (or derivative SVR4 code) didn't make its way into Linux.
SCO does however, legitimately own the copyrights associated with XENIX (which they bought from Microsoft), which includes the portions of SVR4 relating to x86 and a fair chunk of the driver model. Keep in mind that the SCO lawsuits at no point proved that Linux contains no derivative code from SVR4 - only t
Re: (Score:1)
All of this reminds me, has anyone seen the Other Novell OS lately, I mean, Netware? Last time I've seen a Netware server was at least 10 years ago!
Re: (Score:2)
My first IT job was dealing with netware. It ran on the file servers and that's about all it did. We didn't even really pay attention to netware other than having to make sure the drivers were on the DOS boxes that accessed it.
I have no specific complaints or brags about it, it was just there, nothing special.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> And will happen again.
SCO is bankrupt?
Angels did it.
Service Contracts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just service contacts by any means... If you've got 100 SCO severs and need to expand, rewriting your apps can be much more expensive that maintaining your legacy proprietary OS. I fully expect companies that already have a significant installed base of SCO severs (ala McDonalds), will continue to purchase new licenses for years to come. Remember, SCO is almost as old as DOS, and that continues to find new uses as well, no matter how much we'd all like to see it die off quickly, and for good. Even w
Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anybody shed any light on just who "UnXis Inc." actually is? What is going on here?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1882896&cid=34339448 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Huh?
You link to a post of yourself asking a similar answer, and getting a good reply. How does that match up with "you're not allowed to ask those kind of questions here"?
Or are you crying about the troll who also replied to you? If so, get off the Internet, since you obviously cannot handle it.
Re:Just who is "UnXis Inc."? (Score:4, Informative)
Back in 2009 Unxis and SCO seemed to be the same company.
http://techrights.org/2009/07/14/sco-and-unxis/ [techrights.org]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090711015440158 [groklaw.net]
http://www.unxis.ca/ [unxis.ca]
http://www.unxis.co.uk/ [unxis.co.uk]
http://www.unxis.com/ [unxis.com]
So I would say it all seems like a scam to avoid having to do anything legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot ate half of what I wrote.
http://www.unxis.ca/ [unxis.ca] Is the Google result, and seems to have been made in 5 mins, or by a colour blind manager.
http://www.unxis.co.uk/ [unxis.co.uk] Pushes you to SCO.com
http://www.unxis.com/ [unxis.com] Sends you to a link farm
http://unxis.it/ [unxis.it] Is password locked.
UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds about right (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it relevant?
Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
That still doesn't make it relevant. SCO's case was garbage, PJ, whether a human being, the IBM legal team or Jesus Fucking Christ, did a considerable amount of analysis, and backed the analysis of experts in Unix, who said that McBride was nothing more than a common thug trying to use what his company did not possess to extort licensing fees from companies using Unix-like operating systems.
At the end of the day, SCO failed because it had been taken over by dishonest and dishonorable scamsters.
Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Be that as it may, the fact is that SCO failed because they did not own what they claimed to own, and Groklaw played a part in that, at least so far as keeping the case out there even as the courts gave McBride and his legal team way too much rope. IBM can be a major asshole, but we were all on the same team at that point, and I'm damned glad that IBM didn't simply do the normal thing a large corporation would do and buy off the smaller company making the claims
And, as I said, PJ's identity is irrelevant to all of this anyways. The only people who seemed obsessed with it were the crooks at SCO and a few incredibly dishonorable "journalists".
Re: (Score:3)
t is revelvent because a lot of people think that GL is a front for IBM.
A lot of people think an invisible man in the sky wants them to kill people, too. In both cases, they're best left to their delusions unless they actually act on their loony ideas, in which case it is incumbent on the rational people of the world to slap them down and get on with our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Darl!
Re:UnXis is a shell company owned by SCO? (Score:4)
Then don't go there. I haven't visited Groklaw in a helluva long time. But there seem to be a lot of people who somehow think they're being clever by kicking PJ's name and reputation around, and that bothers me. She provided an incredible important purpose, and deserves better than some stupid fucking AC on Slashdot mouthing off.
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that anyone trying to accurately report the state and actions of SCO can't help but to *seem* paranoid. You have to keep in mind how incredibly insane SCO people have repeatedly been. They charged at *IBM* with no case at all. They played all sorts of games with investors and regulatory agencies to cheat their way out of trouble and keeping as much money as possible. This 'Unxis' being nothing more than some sort of shell game to further misdirect things is not far fetched at all. It's not
some conspiracy possibilities for UnXis (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for last point - won't work if the domain buyer is located outside the US with different legislation. The courts may not even bother then.
Re: (Score:2)
UnXis, pronounced as "unc-sis" short for "uncle-sister".
All we can say is; this company is based in Alabama.
More Info by mere mortals (Score:2)
Reading the comments where it does not get ummm erased is some what more informative at:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&clear=1&pt=m [investorvillage.com]
Comments there are not scrutinized as much and therefore more interesting.
What is UnXis? (Score:2)
Does anybody know what UnXis is? Is it a real company or facade for something? Googling does not reveal much.
Re:What is UnXis? (Score:4, Funny)
Does anybody know what UnXis is?
I think UnXis is the plural of Unix.
Re: (Score:3)
"Unixen?" (Score:1)
On Dasher, on Prancer, on Comet and Unixen? Or more like Boxen, maybe?
In all seriousness, Unixes is what I hear most often, with no regard given to its correctness. I think Unices sounds best, though it kinda comes off sounding like an acronymized UN agency. Your mileage may vary.
Re:What is UnXis? (Score:4, Informative)
That domain is just some guy in North York, ON that does consulting (do a whois and look yourself).
It's not related to this, so don't call the guy up and give him shit.
The real domain, unxis.co.uk, as stated above, belongs to SCO since it redirects to SCO.
The question is, does the guy in North York have a beef with SCO now?
--
BMO
Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
Ding! Dong! The witch is ... Wait what? OH DAMN IT!!!
Re:Hooray! - Post to undo moderation (Score:2)
Not a good start given the new name (Score:5, Funny)
I read UnXis as "unctuous":
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unctuous [wiktionary.org]
Adjective
unctuous
1. Oily or greasy.
2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor.
3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.
UnXis = Sketchy (Score:1)
Take a look at the "about us" page: UNXIS - About Us [unxis.ca]
M.I.C.K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E. - who want's to sing along?
Re: (Score:1)
I see that all my usual meat is taken (Score:2)
Normally I would post some information here that's relevant to the current squabble, some stuff that equates to the ultimate decimation of SCO and their trolling ways. But that's a foregone conclusion. Dissolution is waiting for SCO, and the only interesting thing about it is the way they do it.
But that is settled, so if I want to educate and inform I have to go further afield. One of those ways is to teach folk about Ransom Love.
You see, Ransom was a Linux geek, fully into the ecosystem. He understo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, there's the thing. He bought the business, not the religion.
But not only didn't he buy the religion, he didn't even buy the copyright to the sacred texts.
Re: (Score:2)
So he bought it, and suffered therefrom.
No, he did not. The court cases have shown that he indeed failed to buy it, and that is what he suffered from.
Singing frog (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vH2rjUshk
Darl will have to take two to the back of the head (Score:2)
This man (and I use the term loosely,) has a major hard-on for Linux and, like a rabid dog, he's not going to unclench his jaws from the smoke he's holding until somebody puts him down.
I can see him at the rense.com studios, well into his eighties, yelling into some one else's microphone, trying to get people to give a shit.
He's just there for comic relief, to fill the air time between the commercials,, like the conspiracy theorists, the Hitler sympathizers and the other nuts who are paraded out to soak up
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that Darl has a pile of cash stowed away in a bank on the Cayman Islands. I think he's a goddamn fucking asshole, but he is not stupid. He did all that bullshit because someone paid him to do it. Of course, this will remain speculation given the tight lips at the banks on the Cayman Islands. It will never be proven, since it was all probably handled through trusted middlemen. Well, maybe some pissed off bank employee will pass something off to WikiLeaks, but I would not bother to hold my brea
Classic two man scam (Score:2)
It was a two man scam.
Linux was just the brand of the company car, IBM was the wall and Darl's brother's legal firm was the panel shop that did the work at a huge markup. Huge amounts of money funnelled out and no need to hide it.
The entire thing really had nothing to do with linux and was just a scam on the SCO shareholders with a possible bit of pump and dump on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
You do remember that the money to fund the lawsuit against Linux was paid by Microsoft, don't you? Just because someone was getting rich doesn't mean the whole thing had nothing to do with Linux. Nice try, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
has a major hard-on for Linux and, like a rabid dog, he's not going to unclench his jaws from the smoke he's holding... yelling into some one else's microphone... Hitler
Ding! You win the coveted George Orwell Octopus In The Melting Pot Award for Gratuitious Weirding of Metaphors.
Thank you, thank you. (Score:2)
I would like to than the members of the academy, my parents and the kids upstairs from me for giving me the incentive for mixing metaphors with such abandon.
I look forward to many more chances to delight my audience in the coming years.
[three hour speech elided]
Once again, thank you.
Ho-hum. (Score:2)
Troll (Score:2)
97 comments so far, and no "I hope you paid your $400 licensing fees, you cocksmoking teabaggers!" troll nostalgia yet?
For shame, Slashdot, for shame.
Maybe UnXis group *is* Scox (Score:2)
02.06.11
The UNIX Battle Moves to Former SCO Executives (Who Own unXis Domains)
Summary: SCO gets more money for anti-Linux litigation, thanks to an alleged purchase from an entity tied to former SCO managers
http://techrights.org/2011/02/06/hans-bayer-unxis-payola/
Re: (Score:2)