Darl McBride [Was Re: July Meeting Ideas?]
moveson at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 09:41:02 MDT 2010
I read the wikipedia article...
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
SCO is going along and decides to sue IBM. Novell steps in a says
"you can't sue IBM you don't own the copyrights in the first place."
So SCO sues Novell. SCO loses and is ordered to pay Novell 2.5
It seems SCO might still be in business if they had not decided to sue
IBM or Novell.
So you might say Mr. McBride drove SCO right into the ground.
Mr McBride has a terrible track record. I can't imagine anyone hiring
him to ever run a business again.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Henry Hertz Hobbit
<hhhobbit at securemecca.com> wrote:
> I don't think he wants to talk to anybody:
> " ... prompting him to carry a firearm and to employ multiple
> Everything I read leads me to conclude McBride ardently believes
> Linux has SVSV code in it. I think he has conned himself into
> believing that until his dying day. Do you really want to hear
> that drivel? I DON'T! Personally, I wonder just how technically
> literate he is with an undergraduate degree in Sociology and
> a graduate degree in Industrial Relations.
> I am not coming to the July meeting. It is too hot to do
> anything and August may be the same. Happy sipping. I will
> sip at home and study here.
> -------- IF YOU GO BEYOND HERE DO NOT COMPLAIN! --------
> (hint, hint, tap the delete button now)
> I think McBride probably cannot talk about anything because of
> all the existing non-disclosure agreements he had to sign.
> Never mind the fact that he thought they were created for his
> subordinates, never believing he would get the ax. I am pretty
> sure the restructuring team gave him about as good a severance
> as he could hope to get but part of that is that he should NOT
> talk. At this point I wonder if SCO can even continue at all.
> What do they have to restructure and build on? IMHO, their
> suit of Linux vendors was the only gambit they had left to
> turn around a gradual decline into obscurity. I may be wrong
> because McBride purchased the SCO Mobility intellectual
> property just a few months ago for $100,000. Is it something
> that is going to lead to a law-suit with Apple over iPhone
> using what he provides?
> To me it is a non-issue. It is sort of like somebody arguing
> that my ssort.c program which uses a modified heap-sort has to
> belong to J.R.J. Williams because he is the one that created
> the original heap-sort. Never mind the fact I eliminated the
> subordinate functions and rolled everything into just one
> function to get about the same speed as the quick-sort with
> none of the performance degradation because most of the data I
> work with is already in nearly sorted order. Writing code
> reminds me of musicians who all use the same chords. You may
> as well argue that various Hip-Hop artists music belongs to
> Mozart because they use some of his chords. When you need to
> write a loop to do something you need a loop and that is all
> there is to it. Does that mean the for loop and while loop
> concepts belong to SCO? Evidently both a judge and then a
> jury agreed with that idea despite the fact most of them have
> not worked with hundreds of LOC. They came to the exact same
> conclusion - SCO doesn't own Unix copyrights nor is the code
> a blatant grab and copy of SYSV code.
> So let them appeal and request new trials until hell freezes
> over. If you had asked me 3-5 years ago I would have told
> you it was over then. Finisez!
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG