Yeah, really sad.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| sxf Dec 27, 2005 8:38 AM EDT |
I was thinking exactly the same as I was scanning the latest SCO results, a very sombre reading indeed. The thing that intrigues me, however, is the mystery behind the current backers of SCO: who are these small, almost unheard of investment funds willing to back this desperate venture? How did the strategy u-turn take place exactly? That would be an interesting story. |
| tadelste Dec 27, 2005 9:06 AM EDT |
They may be Microsoft shills. Or, small hedge funds that believe Microsoft will always win. I don't know what one might find sad about it. These guys had evil intentions, it seems, from the beginning. You didn't see IBM buckeling over in fear, did you? If this was poker, who do you think is bluffing and you do you think holds the cards? |
| sxf Dec 27, 2005 10:05 AM EDT |
OK, I'd better clarify my post, which was a little rambling perhaps. Several Linux companies ran into problems at some point and had to adjust their business model (e.g. Red Hat, Mandriva). This is understandable and it is part of the risk of being innovative. The conduct of SCO management, on the other hand, might be considered haphazard: the company was a respected UNIX vendor (one of the most respected, arguably) and an early Linux adopter. One might think that there were lower-risk options available to face SCO's problems, rather than throw away completely what they had done previously, turn against their clients and the community that sustained them, and transform the company into a sort of patent troll. This is the "sad" bit: loss of expertise, technology, customer goodwill and shareholders value. I agree with the author of the article: SCO could and should have tried to play a far more interesting game, but now everything seems lost forever. As for "who is bluffing and who holds the cards", I don't know, as I am not a kernel hacker. However, based on what happened during the trial so far, I assume that SCO's claims seem far-fetched, if not completely baseless. On the other hand, I feel that the circumstances surrounding SCO shift could make an interesting article of investigative journalism. Management have a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of all shareholders. Why did they choose such a high-risk strategy? And as for the hedge funds baking SCO, who are they? Normally, hedge funds investors are quite sophisticated, and I would be surprised if they invest based only on the premise that "Microsoft is always right". |
| bstadil Dec 27, 2005 6:36 PM EDT |
Why did they choose such a high-risk strategy? It really wasn't so high risk. The company was going under and the articles claim about all would have been well if they had stayed a Linux company is bull. It was a badly run company with little or no talent poised for bankrupcy. The "high risk strategy" was going to MS and ask for money to derail Linux. MS paid up and a hedge fund paid $25M or so for a lottery ticket (The hedge fund has most likely connections to MS as we will see during the trail, and the penalty face when SCO is asked to paid up for the damage done) They have been burning other peoples money for the duration. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!