Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Businesses The Courts

UnXis Group To Acquire SCO 131

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UnXis Group To Acquire SCO

Comments Filter:
  • by fish waffle (179067) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @07:59PM (#35115106)

    I thought they were just patent trolls.

    • A few years ago, UnixWare and OpenServer actually had pretty impressive marketshare. SCO's increasing insanity, and total neglect of those products after ~2006, caused almost all of their customers to jump ship. It's sad, really... those weren't bad operating systems at all.
      • by jimicus (737525) on Sunday February 06, 2011 @07:56AM (#35117618)

        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.

    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @10:49PM (#35115928) Journal

      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.

      • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Sunday February 06, 2011 @12:18AM (#35116260) Journal

        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...

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        Yes. Unix was awesome. Yes, they did take Microsoft's money and make a hash of it. No, this didn't impede progress at all because we had already worked around the intellectual property issues of Unix with Linux. A swing and a miss for the 'softies. Nice try, come again in 2015.
        • by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday February 06, 2011 @05:32AM (#35117172) Journal

          You know what I find hilarious? The fact that Linux guys as a group are fricking obsessed with getting "the big bad MSFT" and completely missing the real enemy about to seriously hurt them. It reminds me of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs was completely obsessed over IBM and Gates quietly snuck in and stomped his ass. It is like the sheep laughing at the old toothless tiger while leaning up against his bestest buddy the BB Wolf.

          Who is the hidden enemy you might ask? :Let me put it this way: 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. That is why RMS had to come up with GPL V3 in the first place, because thanks to the TiVo trick the four freedoms mean squat as long as they stick with GPL V2, and Google hasn't touched a single drop of GPL V3.

          So you might want to be looking closer at who is guarding the henhouse instead of caring about the old grudges. MSFT is the past, sure they'll keep the desktop and office but just like the mainframe was once the center of computing so too will the office PC end up with a niche that frankly doesn't really grow. PCs have gotten "good enough" for the vast majority and people don't just upgrade everytime MSFT does a new OS anymore. They are the past and mobile is the future and if you don't watch it Linux will end up winning the battle but losing the war. After all what good is Linux being everywhere if there is no more freedom than any proprietary OS thanks to the corps simply using GPL V2 and the TiVo trick?

          As for TFA, just let them fricking die already. Hell it isn't even any fun making fun of them anymore, McBride has lost everything and the company is a corpse. It's like going to laugh at your asshole neighbor for old times sake now that he is sleeping in his car by the 7/11. Sure McBride was a douche and the company went from being an actual company with actual products (I kinda liked DR-DOS back in the day myself) to yet another worthless troll,but its over. Now more drama, no more McBride crazy talk, the fat lady is down the street having a sandwich. What's next /. gonna have an article when they sell the office furniture?

          • by kwark (512736) on Sunday February 06, 2011 @07:00AM (#35117446)

            "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]

            • by maxume (22995)

              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.

          • by kiwimate (458274)

            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

          • by cronius (813431)

            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

    • by 1s44c (552956)

      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.

      • by M1FCJ (586251)

        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.

      • by Vryl (31994)

        Caldera or the real Santa Cruz?

        SCO Group is not SCO, it is Caldera.

  • by grapeape (137008) <{moc.rr.ck} {ta} {7epopm}> on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:02PM (#35115134) Homepage

    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.

    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:30PM (#35115322)

      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 ;-)

    • by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash.p10link@net> on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:55PM (#35115432) Homepage

      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.

      • by fucket (1256188)
        From your description, it sounds like it could be worth less than zero.
      • by jnelson4765 (845296) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @11:03PM (#35115984) Journal

        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...

        • by Z00L00K (682162)

          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.

        • by thegarbz (1787294)

          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?

          • All of them.

            Blame AT&T.

            man TZ on linux:

            The value of TZ can be one of three formats. The first format is used
            when there is no daylight saving time in the local timezone:

            std offset

            The std string specifies the name of the timezone and must be three or
            more

            • by thegarbz (1787294)
              Cool, won't ever use it again though since I haven't come across a distribution yet that didn't come with zoneinfo files out of the box. That goes for Linux and several flavours of Unix.
        • by TAZ6416 (584004)
          Pizza Hut in Northern Ireland, and probably in the rest of the UK used SCO based cash registers about a year or two ago, don't know if they still do. I saw one booting up when I was in getting a coffee when a Pizza Hut was just opening for business that day. And my Vet uses a SCO system that runs off an old 486 in the reception and has WYSE terminals in each of the consulting rooms.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Sunday February 06, 2011 @12:20AM (#35116268) Journal

        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.

  • by Mark19960 (539856) <Mark@freequ[ ].net ['est' in gap]> on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:03PM (#35115142) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      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.

      • by Xtifr (1323)

        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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • by M1FCJ (586251)

        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!

        • by v1 (525388)

          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.

    • It's not a question of better chances, just that eventually they'll be able to slip by.
    • by Bobtree (105901)

      > And will happen again.

      SCO is bankrupt?

      Angels did it.

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:05PM (#35115156)
    About the only thing of value would be the service contracts, I think. Certainly no can be interested in SCO "technology" who is not already using it.
    • If they could be peeled off with sufficient creativity, some of the SCO lawsuits might still have value as a high-risk/high-reward vehicle. I'd hate to see the zombie shamble on; but if you could keep the ongoing legal costs down, you could probably find investors willing to take a chance in exchange for the slight odds of a major payoff...
    • by evilviper (135110)

      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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:06PM (#35115172)

    Can anybody shed any light on just who "UnXis Inc." actually is? What is going on here?

  • by Aryeh Goretsky (129230) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:08PM (#35115178) Homepage
    Hello, Groklaw seems to imply a relationship between the two: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090711015440158 [groklaw.net] Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • by redwhine (1990662) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @09:09PM (#35115490)
      I think Groklaw got it right... The UnXis URL http://unxis.co.uk/ [unxis.co.uk] takes you to a SCO page with the title "unXis - The future of UNIX is here"
    • What the link says is a former executive of SCO owns the domain name. And while it would be easy to build some paranoid scenario involving the evil Darl, a more reasonable speculation is that that a former executive with some knowledge of the assets sees some value in them outside of the IP lawsuit industry, which clearly failed for SCO...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    • Buyer is dsylexic and/or a terrible speller
    • pronounced "Un-cease" - litigation against Linux and others not over, not by a long shot
    • "U-N Cease" - a shadowy organization opposed to the United Nations
    • Buyer is a phishing site looking to cash in on people punching in URLs with fat fingers
    • Buyer and/or SCO waiting for someone to register unxis.com opportunistically, then they'll sue for $100 million
    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      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.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      UnXis, pronounced as "unc-sis" short for "uncle-sister".
      All we can say is; this company is based in Alabama.

  • 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.

  • Does anybody know what UnXis is? Is it a real company or facade for something? Googling does not reveal much.

    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:32PM (#35115332)

      Does anybody know what UnXis is?

      I think UnXis is the plural of Unix.

      • by gman003 (1693318)
        No, you're thinking of "Unices", or perhaps "Unixen". I have never seen "Unxis" as the plural of "Unix", although it sort of looks like the negation of "axis".
        • 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.

  • Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dexomn (147950) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @08:25PM (#35115286)

    Ding! Dong! The witch is ... Wait what? OH DAMN IT!!!

    • doh! I was torn on whether to rate this as funny or not, but in the end, after admitting to myself that a snort did indeed escape, fresh and new or not, I admitted to myself that it was funny. Then I hit the wrong key. My apologies. But, worse, I hit troll and it certainly wasn't.
  • by paiute (550198) on Saturday February 05, 2011 @10:04PM (#35115774)

    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.

  • 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?

  • 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

    • I just wanted to clarify something. What exactly did Ransom Love buy? Are you saying his company *did* buy the copyrights to Unix even though two trials and an appeals court say no, he did not?
      • by symbolset (646467) *
        Ah, there's the thing. He bought the business, not the religion.
        • by lennier (44736)

          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.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      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.

  • maybe the see an opportunity is sue ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vH2rjUshk
  • 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

    • 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

      • You do remember that most of that SCO money that was pissed away on legal delaying tactics went to Darl's brother don't you?
        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.
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          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.

          • by dbIII (701233)
            Please have the decency of letting the drugs wear off before posting replies. A few dollars to jump on the bandwagon doesn't make it a huge conspiracy by some evil mastermind stroking a cat.
    • by lennier (44736)

      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.

      • 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.

  • Boy, Slashdot is really fired up on this one. I'm pretty sure the judge is going to slap them down for trying to pawn off the lawsuit to a deeper pocket.
  • 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.

  • 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/

Hackers of the world, unite!

Working...