One has to wonder...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| softwarejanitor Jun 16, 2009 12:47 PM EDT |
If Gulf Capital Partners is a front for, in partnership with or being paid off by Microsoft to keep the FUD going a little longer... |
| caitlyn Jun 16, 2009 10:02 PM EDT |
I can't imagine why anyone else would see SCO as a good investment. They paid off 100% of SCOs debts, effectively making SCO solvent again and ending the bankruptcy. Simply amazing! |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 17, 2009 7:11 AM EDT |
Warning: I did not read the article, however, the Register is given to satirical reporting* and a more credible source said the issue was delayed until the 16th or 27th of July. I doubt that the debt has been cleared with Novell and the whole process was aimed at keeping SCO intact until the appeal court's decision. YBT * Facts are secondary when it interferes with a good story. Ah, people I understand. |
| caitlyn Jun 17, 2009 1:08 PM EDT |
There have been other reports from other sources that say exactly the same thing. If SCO's debts are paid (and it appears they have been) the bankruptcy becomes moot. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 17, 2009 1:11 PM EDT |
Well I have now seen the same story elsewhere, however, pay attention to this important caveat: Quoting: ... Ever since SCO filed for bankruptcy the courts have had over[sight] how to dispose of the company’s assets. A hearing to discuss the buy-out has been set for July 16th.The court could simply reject the sale terms, thus forcing the dissolution of SCO. |
| jdixon Jun 17, 2009 1:54 PM EDT |
> The court could simply reject the sale terms, thus forcing the dissolution of SCO. Yes, they could. However, if the buying entity is actually offering to make good on all of SCO's debts, they're unlikely to do so. A bankruptcy sale almost never covers all the outstanding debts, so a purchaser willing to do is far better for the debtors and is the preferred option. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 17, 2009 2:12 PM EDT |
> I can't imagine why anyone else would see SCO as a good investment. They paid off 100% of SCOs debts,
> effectively making SCO solvent again and ending the bankruptcy. Simply amazing! Practically nobody actually thinks that SCO will win any of its lawsuits against anyone. So far they've gotten nowhere and done nothing except lose money and generate FUD. Does anyone really believe that Gulf Capital Partners is willing to gamble on the slim chances that SCO could actually prevail on anything enough to pay back what it cost them to pull them back from the teetering edge of being dissolved? SCO management already managed to destroy most if not all of their non-litigation related business, so I can't see the part split off from Darl McBride's clutches as sufficient to warrant such a large investment either, even if SCO could just make this whole lawsuit mess go away... I think that just about anyone rational believes that chances are virtually certain that SCO will continue to lose millions by spending on executive salaries and legal fees and ultimately lose all of their cases or end up settling for tiny amounts that make them a net loss. The only thing that makes sense is if MS is behind funding Gulf Capital Partners just to try to keep the FUD train rolling. And really, you have to wonder if this is really worth it to them even. I mean we all know that MS has money falling out of their sphincters, but it just doesn't seem to be worth it. They must be coming from some kind of deep fear of Linux/Open Source if they really are willing to spend the kind of bucks just for a distraction. When it comes down to it, none of this makes much sense... |
| vainrveenr Jun 17, 2009 3:04 PM EDT |
... yep. As SJVN concludes in one of his latest blogs 'SCO rises from the dead', http://blogs.computerworld.com/sco_rises_from_the_dead : Quoting:We don't know who's behind this latest SCO buyout craziness, but it seems a safe bet that at the bottom of it all we'll find friends of Microsoft. There's simply no sane business reason to keep SCO's anti-Linux litigation in play except to spread a little anti-Linux FUD, and Microsoft is the only company that has any real interest in seeing that happen.Maybe this will turn out as good conjecture. |
| gus3 Jun 17, 2009 3:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:> The court could simply reject the sale terms, thus forcing the dissolution of SCO.I could make the same offer, but I'd be laughed out of the court. (Not that I would, in a million years.) I hope the lawyers for IBM and Novell demand to see the money in escrow before they consider withdrawing objections. Without that, they could only be described as "incompetent." |
| jdixon Jun 17, 2009 3:33 PM EDT |
> I hope the lawyers for IBM and Novell demand to see the money in escrow before they consider withdrawing objections. Oh, I think even the court will want quite a bit of proof that the buyer is capable and willing to pay before they consider the sale. Then IBM and Novell get their say. So, yes, I think an escrow account requirement is a certainty. |
| flufferbeer Jun 17, 2009 3:38 PM EDT |
Whatever the case may be -- even if this buyer with the big money _doe$_ manage to keep SCO afloat for the near-term -- I hope that eventually SCO and its allied FUD-mongering agents _will_ get buried for good! 2c |
| gus3 Jun 17, 2009 10:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Oh, I think even the court will want quite a bit of proof that the buyer is capable and willing to pay before they consider the sale.As much as I'd like to share your optimism, the eye-witness reports on Groklaw suggest otherwise. The court is pretty much putty in SCO's hands, and SCO knows it. That's why I'm hoping the lawyers for IBM and Novell will be more on-the-ball. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 18, 2009 1:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft is the only company that has any real interest in seeing that happen. They're the only people who still consider Linux a "threat", instead of a profit vector. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2009 2:47 PM EDT |
> They're the only people who still consider Linux a "threat", instead of a profit vector. Well, Microsoft is just about the last "great white hope" for proprietary operating systems in general. Just about every other company has embraced a Linux/*nix style kernel based future or died. It may take years, but inevitably Microsoft will fall too. |
| caitlyn Jun 18, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Just about every other company has embraced a Linux/*nix style kernel based future or died. Of course *nix doesn't necessarily mean FOSS. It can be closed/proprietary as well. Quoting:It may take years, but inevitably Microsoft will fall too. I wish I shared your optimism. I just don't see it. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2009 8:00 PM EDT |
> I wish I shared your optimism. I just don't see it. Never say never. Nothing lasts forever. In the 1960s to 1980s if you had told someone that IBM would have a quarter where they lost more than a billion dollars you'd have been looked at like you were nuts. But in the early 1990s it happened. Now, IBM didn't die, but they had to seriously remake themselves and they are not the same company they used to be. So maybe I should replace "die" with "die or rebuild themselves". You can think of lots of other examples. In the 1950s or 1960s who would have thought that GM would ever declare bankruptcy? But as history has shown things change and the rules of a market don't stay the same forever. The Roman Empire fell. Disruptive things come along that can turn things upside down. Every so often you see some signs that there are weak spots in Microsoft's armor. And they are a big, aggressive bully that have made a lot of enemies. Sooner or later a dagger will find one of those gaps. Time will tell what it will be, but its almost inevitable that Microsoft will meet their "Waterloo". It may be Open Source that does it, or it may be some other competitor. Anyway, I hope that if you can't see it Microsoft can't either until the blade is twisting and their vision all goes black. |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 12:16 AM EDT |
> So maybe I should replace "die" with "die or rebuild themselves". I think Microsoft is very likely to rebuild themselves once the current generation of management leaves, but not until. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 19, 2009 2:34 PM EDT |
@jdixon I agree -- As long as Steve Ballmer is there in particular I don't think they will be able to rebuild themselves. My personal opinion is that he's actually responsible for more of Microsoft's reprehensible track record of behavior than Bill Gates. The fact that they are still up to their same old dirty tricks even after Bill has ostensibly retired from day to day actively running the business is a lot of why I believe that. Once Ballmer's gone I think Microsoft may have a chance to turn themselves around, but it depends on how pervasively their culture that promotes unethical behavior has permeated into the next layer or two of management. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 19, 2009 2:44 PM EDT |
Oh... its also worth noting that predictions of Microsoft's eventual demise aren't likely realistic within the next year, or two or even five. They've still got huge amounts of cash, inertia and momentum. I'm talking in practical "geological timescales" relative to the computer industry. Which means that it could be 10, 20 or more years down the road. That may seem like a long time down the road for a Gen-Yer, but even a lot of Gen-Xer techies may still be active in the job market when it happens. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 2:53 PM EDT |
A lot can happen in 10 or 20 years. I don't think many people could have predicted current trends in technology 10 or 20 years ago. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 19, 2009 4:12 PM EDT |
I know a writer who wrote pretty much what we call "the Internet" today into his 1975 book, "The Probability Broach". He called it "the Com". http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 4:28 PM EDT |
You found an excuse to link something which advertises itself as a Libertarian political tract. You can't resist, can you? Thanks but no thanks. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 19, 2009 4:42 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, At least I don't just spout tired campus socialist-youth slogans. I said the writer had "predicted" what came to pass ~20 years after he wrote it. I then point to a free version of the text. Gee, just like you going off about the political and governmental makeup of Jordan, and whining that you think it's "on topic". If you don't like it, you are welcome not to read it. Please don't crucify yourself in the process expecting pity from me for what you choose to do, pity is the last thing you inspire. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
Pity? Me? Mope. I do find you pitiful, however, If you can't tell the difference between an on topic post and posting political tracts you have a serious problem. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 19, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
You're merely demonstrating that you get to post anything you want. |
| caitlyn Jun 19, 2009 5:08 PM EDT |
Not so. Your posts had one and only one purpose: to stir up something and pick a fight. I think most people are bright enough to see right through that. You have posted nothing related to the topic at hand or even vaguely on topic. You're the one posting "poor poor pitiful me" and claiming to be singled out for your political views. Maybe it's your approach rather than your views that are the problem. Did you ever think of that? Nobody wants LXer to be a political website with an agenda except for maybe you. Enough! |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
> You found an excuse to link something... > ...between an on topic post and posting political tracts you have a serious problem. It's a link, Caitlyn, not a post. Links don't violate the TOS, posts do. I don't think Scott and company worry too much about what links you provide, as long as they're not to illegal or pornographic material. And you should know better than to follow Bob's links by now. If he considers something worth linking to, it's almost certain you won't like it. While I hate to say it, given that I do have a bias in the matter, I think in this case Bob is correct and you're wrong. |
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!