The article's title is slightly misleading [LWN.net]

The article's title is slightly misleading

Posted Jul 27, 2007 22:55 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)
Parent article: Linux companies that didn't deserve to die (Linux-Watch)

"Linux companies that didn't deserve to die" is perhaps a little kind; Whilst I agree that Progeny, Cobalt, and Caldera (pre-SCO) were unfortunate victims of circumstance, Linuxcare most certainly deserved to die simply because its ridiculously shoddy management. As for SCO, well I could care less about them at this point...

(Log in to post comments)

The article's title is slightly misleading

Posted Jul 28, 2007 17:13 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

"""
As for SCO, well I could care less about them at this point...
"""

I think you mean "couldn't care less". :-)

At any rate, it really is a shame that things went the way they did with OpenServer, UnixWare, and Caldera. If Ransom Love and his gang had joined forces with Old SCO to push enterprise Linux, which is not that hard to imagine, considering how things have worked out with SGI and Sun, they really could have been a great ally today.

Don't confuse Darl and SCO Group with what came before.

What a waste The Canopy Group's strategy turned out to be for most everyone involved.

SCO vs SCO

Posted Aug 4, 2007 21:05 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

As for SCO, well I [couldn't] care less about them at this point...
Don't confuse Darl and SCO Group with what came before.

To put it a little plainer: the company you couldn't care less about is not the one that the article says didn't deserve to die. Two companies with the same (root) name and some past business dealings.