Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
SCO to continue the fight?Just as it seemed the SCO saga was drawing to a close, a new player, with up to $100 million to risk, has come on the scene. Stephen Norris Capital Partners (SNCP) has made an offer to take SCO private while providing a line of credit to allow the company to continue its operations. If the bankruptcy court in Delaware agrees to the plan—which is not a foregone conclusion—SCO and its various legal cases could be with us for a long time to come. SNCP will put up $5 million in cash to essentially purchase between 51 and 85% of SCO; the exact percentage is dependent upon how much of the $95 million credit line is used to pay off Novell and/or IBM. If there is no payment, because SCO eventually wins those cases, SNCP will get 51%. If the payment is over $30 million, SNCP gets 85%; in between those two, the percentage of ownership will be pro-rated between the two. The actual transaction would issue "Series A Preferred" stock to SNCP (and its investors), which would be convertible into SCO "New Common Stock"; the current common stockholders would be see their shares "extinguished" and a trust established for them. This deal would take SCO private, no longer publicly traded nor subject to SEC reporting requirements. Under the proposed agreement, the credit line has an interest rate of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus "1700 basis points"—17% for those without a high-finance background—which currently works out to be around 20%. This is clearly not cheap money, but it does provide a rather large war chest for SCO to continue the fight. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [PDF] makes it clear that interest payments are part of what the line of credit is supposed to pay for:
The purpose of the loan is to provide funds for (i) working capital for
SCO following its emergence from bankruptcy, (ii) to pay interest when
due under the Debt Financing, and (iii) to support the prosecution of
the Reorganized Debtor's Litigation Claims, including providing letters
of credit or other financial arrangements adequate to support any
required appellate bonds (in which event the Reorganized SCO shall pay
the reasonable letter of credit fees and expenses), and to effect
payment of any final award against the Reorganized Debtor).
SCO's bombastic CEO, Darl McBride, will be required to resign as a condition of the deal. The Series A stockholders would be entitled to elect four of the seven board members, ensuring that they control the day-to-day direction of the company. The CEO would hold another seat, as would an "outside executive with suitable industry expertise." The remaining seat would be open to anyone and voted on by the current common stockholders. What do the current stockholders get from this deal? Not much in the short term, as the MOU would set up a trust with $2 million (from the $5 million cash investment) to be distributed amongst the current stockholders. The current common stock would be "extinguished" and the trust would hold "New Common Stock" equivalent to the 15-49% left over based on the amount of the credit line used. Shareholders would get a pro-rata interest in the trust based on their current percentage of ownership. Based on 22 million outstanding shares, the distribution will amount to around $0.09 per share. Since SCO sued IBM in March 2003, most of the stock speculation has been based on some kind of monetary settlement from IBM. Investors in SCO since that time have essentially been betting on that outcome; the new arrangement still allows the current stockholders to hold onto their litigation lottery ticket. Any settlement money that comes to SCO as a result of the Novell and IBM cases would be paid to the trust in the percentage of ownership of the company that it holds (i.e. 15-49%). At that time, the trust would also get its percentage of four times the previous year's earnings. These would then be distributed to the members of the trust. It's a fairly complicated deal, this just covers the high points; the curious are directed at the MOU itself. It is a bit premature to proclaim that SCO is going private or getting $100 million as some in the press have done. The bankruptcy court will have its say; Novell may have an objection or two as well though, as things currently stand, they would be the likely beneficiary of some substantial part of the line of credit. We may get a read on how confident Novell is based on what, if any, objections they raise. It is hard to imagine that SNCP thinks SCO's business prospects are such that a large financial commitment is warranted. This is very clearly an attempt to wring money out of the current litigation—and perhaps start additional lawsuits. It is interesting to note that in addition to the Novell and IBM lawsuits, the MOU specifically mentions the Autozone case. There is speculation that the idea of a "Linux tax" on users is an outcome that SNCP and its investors covet. The question is, does SNCP truly believe that the claims made by SCO—without much in the way of supporting evidence so far—are likely to succeed on their merits? Or do they think that by providing enough incentive—in the form of a further protracted legal battle—might cause someone to settle? The IBM case has been dragging on for almost five years now. With the kind of money SCO would have at its disposal if this deal goes through, dragging out for another five does not seem implausible. At some point IBM or Novell may tire of the whole thing and try to cut some kind of deal. One hopes not, but that may be exactly what SNCP is betting on. The other side of that coin is that if that doesn't happen, we may well get a real hearing on some of IBM's counterclaims, in particular the GPL-infringement claims. That could be very interesting to watch. (Log in to post comments)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 8:46 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] The ONLY purpose I see is to keep Novell and/or IBM from owning SCO and getting access to all those nasty incriminating internal memos and secret contracts. SNCP can't be so dumb as to think the legal cases have any legs. $100M is chump change for Microsoft, who I am convinced are behind this deal. They are the only ones with anything to hide. Of course, Sun might not want the details of their contract to come out in public, but they can't be more then toe deep in the SCO cesspool compared to Microsoft's neck deep wading.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 10:37 UTC (Sat) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] SCO as a company is really toast. The legal claims looks anything but promising, especially since it has been established that all they really has is the binaries for Unixware and the right to sell licenses for the old AT&T sourcecode as a proxy for Novell. All they have left is contract issues and their interpretion of the contracts are to put it mildly very inventive. Because of this and the fact that Microsoft has been footing the bill all along i think its a safe bet that they are behind this. The likelyhood of SCO hitting the big payday now is very small, the odds would make investing in lotto more safe and with bigger return than SCO. My hope are with the EU to investigate into this because the US DOJ just dont seem to want an open market at all.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 11:17 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is beyond doubt that at this very moment Groklaw's PJ is furiosly trying to link SNCP to Microsoft in any possible way. And it is indeed credible that Microsoft is behind this latest move. But being so sure of things (what PJ calls "looking for Waldo", because you already know he is around) is dangerous: it might lead to false positives.I think that keeping an open mind about the matter is more productive in the end. Yes, Microsoft has an interest to cover this pile of excrements, but there are also a lot of stupid people with money willing to make stupid investments. After all they are trying to fire McBride, who has a lot to hide too.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 12:43 UTC (Sat) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] I seriously doubt anyone having 100 million and able to think an offer like this through to be that stupid. The most likely conclusion is that the one making this offer has malicious intent towards Linux. All the indications points towards Microsoft so the first thing to check before making any deeper investigations is them. Just like you always check the cables if you have a network faliure before you start meddling with MTU and stuff. Keeping an open mind does not imply to throw your intuition overboard.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 18, 2008 12:19 UTC (Mon) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link] I have worked in finance for more than 10 years, and there are certainly plenty of distressed-investing hedge funds who would invest 100mm USD without necessarily understanding too much about the IBM/Novell litigation. There are all sorts of ways to make money out of a distressed investment, many of which are far from obvious to the regular person even if they have some understanding of investing. Its not a foregone conclusion that MS are behind this.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 14:29 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ It is beyond doubt that at this very moment Groklaw's PJ is furiosly trying to link SNCP to Microsoft in any possible way. """ Apparently some guy from SNCP had dinner with Bill Gates one time. So as far as PJ is concerned, there's Waldo. And, of course, she says so in so many words. As much as I dislike and distrust Microsoft, sometimes PJ is just psychotic. Which would be her own business, of course, except for the way she acts as though she reprsents the community, and makes us appear psychotic by association. In that way, she's on about the same level as Eric Raymond.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 17:41 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Um, they did a bit more than have dinner.News reports have alleged that the funder behind the new SCO deal is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who has previously had multi-billion-dollar ventures in partnership with Bill Gates. And calling someone "psychotic" under these circumstances is, frankly, offensive.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:11 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Three hours and twelve minutes. I was timing how long it would take a PJ apologist to show up. Her evidence is flimsy, as usual. Alwaleed was interested in bringing more technology to his country. I may disagree that bringing it in in the form of Microsoft was a *wise* thing to do. But hey. He's not the only one to have made that mistake. On the other hand, going balistic, making allegations, repeatedly, on the flimsiest of evidence, and running around cackling maniacally, in general, can quite reasonably be considered "psychotic" in an informal, if not a medical, sense. I'm sorry if you find the truth offensive. PJ provides a lot of value to the community. But that value is in the form of the factual information provided by Groklaw. The insane, and yes, psychotic, conspiracy theories she spins on a regular basis only hurt her credibility... and her effectiveness. It didn't used to be that way. Groklaw used to be very much a "just the facts ma'am" sort of information source. As proprietor of Groklaw, she can, of course, run it however she wants. But at the same time, reasonable members of the community have every right to distance themselves from her when she makes a fool of herself while claiming, implicitly, to represent us.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:50 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Truth? You want to talk about truth when all you have is your own description of PJ as psychotic? How about you come up with some actual factual instances where she suggested something psychotic which didn't pan out? My recollection is that her predictions have been pretty accurate. You allege she is psychotic without any evidence to back it up. I would call that rather more anti-social than any predictions from PJ. Don't come back with a demand for evidence of her non-psychosis. That's a non-starter. You are the one alleging psychotic behavior; you need to supply the evidence.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:15 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ My recollection is that her predictions have been pretty accurate. """ Most of her unsubstantiated allegations are not likely ever to be proven one way or the other. And the rest... the substantiated ones... we all agree upon anyway. I am only critical of the unsubstantiated ones. And you should understand that I am not exactly anti-PJ. I just don't regard her as the Goddess of OSS that some people seem to, and feel that the unsubstantiated allegations which she makes weaken her own position, as well as my own OSS advocacy efforts. And presumably those of others who advocate OSS software to businesses. As I said before, she contributes much value. And I appreciate her efforts. But that value, in so far as it exists, is in the form of the factual information which she provides. All the conspiracy theories are worse than useless. They are counterproductive. If you want to turn this into a flamefest regarding whether some of her more over-the-top Waldo fantasies are true or not... you'll have to do it without me. But in that case... you are the one with whom rests the burden of proof.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:32 UTC (Sat) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Look at her reaction to the Asus Eee. According to her, the OLPC XO should have a monopoly of the subnotebook market and that manufacturers of any other competing machines are evil. Intel, apparently, should only produce chips for the XO and not any other subnotebook. Asus, the producers of the Eee, are apparently killing off the XO by producing a more powerful machine in a similar form-factor. Side-by-side comparisons of the XO and Eee should not only be banned, but the XO should always be chosen by default - buyers shouldn't be allowed to choose alternatives. This in spite of the fact that the XO is a poorly-specified machine for most uses and that the OLPC organisation is so poorly run that they don't know who's bought what and when they're going to receive them. PJ has no understanding of the free market, only of control. For someone who preaches freedom, she doesn't half play "favorites" when it comes to who can do what... The XO/Eee issue is only one of the farces she's carried out over the past year or two. The bottom line is that she *doesn't* represent the community, even though she claims to. N.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 20:55 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] The Eee PC is a top notch machine, BTW. I bought one about a week ago. And it is everything I had hoped for and more. XO is going to have to compete... rather than living on the kindness of strangers. Some people have problems dealing with that concept.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:07 UTC (Sat) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] I've had mine for a little over a month, and the only fault I can find is that you really do need to upgrade the RAM to 1GB, and that the machine runs quite hot (although I'm told not as hot as laptops). I love the machine, and yet if PJ had her way, I'd be denied the option of buying one. PJ's lost sight of the following: 1) It doesn't matter a damn what laptops children get so long as they get laptops. 2) It doesn't matter a damn what is installed on the laptops so long as the children can do what they want to do. 3) Linux subnotebooks have entered the market at such a low price that kids around the world (first, third, whatever) will get their hands on one. This is a very exciting time for both Linux fans and tech geeks, and here's PJ telling the world that only one company should be allowed to do all this. She has lost sight of what freedom is all about. N.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:21 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Mine has been exceedingly zippy, running Ubuntu Gutsy, on just 512MB. It doesn't even go into swap. (/proc/sys/vm/swappiness=0) That's with an OO.o spreadsheet, wordprocecessing document, Epiphany browser session, and Evolution email session up. It is still only using about 160MB. I know what you mean, though. I feel so strongly about Linux that I sometimes have to stop myself before I, as a consultant and systems admin, restrict someone else's freedom in the name of Linux. It's an easy pit to fall into. And it can be done with the very best of intentions.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 13:42 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] You missed the biggest point: the XO is explicitly designed, hardware and software, for use by *children*. You'd think the 'little machine for adults' would be an obvious hole, but, nope, not to PJ. (I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 13:55 UTC (Sun) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] True, although I'm not ruling out the OLPC organisation producing a more mature-looking version of the XO in future. I await the inevitable AMD-powered subnotebook which will compete with the Eee and XO. Whose chips will PJ use then?
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:02 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Hmm.Childish name-calling and fantasy depictions of people you disagree with ("psychotic", "cackling maniacally?")? Check. Ignoring when gross distortions in your arguments are pointed out ("some guy from SNCP had dinner with Bill Gates one time")? Check. Straw-man arguments ("Alwaleed was interested in bringing more technology to his country" has nothing to do with a personal multibillion-dollar hotel partnership with Gates)? Check. I lament for the level of discourse on LWN.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:12 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Before we continue, are you Steven J Vauhn-Nichols? I'd kind of like to know if I'm conversing with someone whose own journalistic reputation rides on PJ not being a kook, or someone without such a conflict of interest.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:32 UTC (Sat) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] Ad hominem: check.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:34 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] A legitimate question. Errr... check. :-)
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 22, 2008 2:05 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] PJ fanboy. check.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:32 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] If you *are* Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a thousand pardons for mangling your name so in the above post. :-) I accidentally mangled Pamela's name in a correspondence with her, and she concluded that I was obviously an astroturfer hired by SCO or Microsoft, and refused to talk to me. Seriously. -Steve Bergman
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:38 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] No, I am not him. Not that it should matter who I am in a rational discussion.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:13 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] OK. Thanks for that. SJVN, for whom I have a lot of respect, has, oddly, put himself out on a limb regarding PJ lately. But what, exactly, are we debating here? PJ makes some unsubstantiated claims, with just enough completely circumstantial evidence to avoid being laughed out of the room, and *some* in the OSS community are all too ready to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Do we attain victory by becoming as our opponents? NigelK has already pointed out how quickly PJ is willing to throw the concept of freedom out the window, based upon what is essentially tunnel-vision. I say again, and I think this is at least the third time in this thread, that PJ provides much value by reporting facts as only she can. She is not evil. She is, sometimes, overenthusiastic. And sometimes overconfident regarding how far into speculation her credibility among other people will allow her, safely, to go. Beyond that, and she is doing more harm than good. That's about as delicately as I can express my opinion of her condition. And I hope you do not find it too offensive. Sorry if you disagree. But note that I have refrained from calling you a troll in this thread. Or in any other, for that matter.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:37 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I have argued with Mr Bergman before, but I have to agree with him here. PJ does excellent research, explains things great for us non-lawyers, is an excellent writer and has a gift for attracting non-techies to free software. But sometimes she is overenthusiastic and too trigger-happy.His comments may be a bit harsh, but I think your troll-o-meter is a bit too sensitive. What I know is that I would like to see hard evidence this time before Microsoft takes the blame, something along the lines of the Halloween memos. And I don't doubt that Microsoft might be involved, but if we ask for fairness in others we should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:00 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] She didn't blame Microsoft per se, she merely pointed out that the present funder has had a personal multibillion-dollar business relationship with Bill Gates in the past, made a joke about "Waldo," and left the conclusion about the relevance of this relationship to the reader. I don't object to people disagreeing with her about whether this relationship is relevant, but I do object to putting words in someone's mouth, distorting their evidence, and unconscionable namecalling. You're right that I don't think he is a classic "troll" in the sense of someone who tries to provoke a flamewar for fun. But his behavior was trollish and unacceptable in dragging down the level of discussion to incendiary straw men and ad hominem invective. Readers looking for that sort of thing go to Slashdot, not LWN, and my implication was that it was pointless to argue with him as long as the discussion continued at that level.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:41 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ She didn't blame Microsoft per se, """ She continued her silly "Where's Waldo" game. That was the point of that paragraph in her article. "Proving" (in the Groklaw sense) the Microsoft involvement. Groklaw is all about presenting evidence. But none is actually required to convict anyone there. """ You're right that I don't think he is a classic "troll" in the sense of someone who tries to provoke a flamewar for fun. """ Well, you got that right. I've been advocating Unix since 1988, and Linux since 1996. I'm someone who is basically on your side, but who thinks that one of the well meaning members of our community, whom I guess happens to be one of your personal heroes, goes out of bounds and hurts the team rather frequently.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 1:22 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] She reported a factual multi-billion-dollar relationship between the new funder and a major player in the SCO/Linux saga; why is this not a reasonable thing to report? She didn't claim to have "proved" anything.Speculation about my "personal heroes" is yet another attempt to sidetrack this discussion in to ad hominem considerations. Even if she were someone whose opinions were antithetical to mine, I would find gross distortions of her arguments in order to discredit them to be obnoxious. I was raised to believe that you should characterize even an opponent's position fairly before you attempt to refute it.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 2:57 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ Speculation about my "personal heroes" is yet another attempt """ Uh.. right. It's not that I really care that much about who your personal heroes might be. If you wish to carry on believing that PJ presents the facts, and only the facts, without interjecting any sort of silly and obvious biases which destroy what could otherwise be be a sterling record of credibility, well... I guess that's your business. But I will point out that you are distancing yourself from her Waldo game almost as much as I am, claiming that she is just reporting the news like Walter Cronkite. But to me, her style has about as much in common with Walter Kronkite's as... oops, if I said that we'd end up on a tangient about ad hominems... even though it's quite true and relevant. At any rate, I don't beieve in flame wars. I state my case, and then elaborate and repeat a few times if it seems warranted. Any more than that and it is just rude to the other readers.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 4:20 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] There you go again, playing rhetorical games, putting thoughts into my head and arguing against them.Certainly, PJ interjects editorial commentary in many of her articles, and I've never claimed otherwise; she's entitled to her opinions, and one can judge them on a case-by-case basis. But right now, we're talking about this specific issue of her reporting on the investor's relationship to Bill Gates. And in this case, her entire allusion to her running "Waldo" joke, the joke that you've been going on and on about as a "psychotic" "conspiracy theory" that discredits our entire community, is three words ("So, there's Waldo."); horrors, what a baseless accusation! Otherwise, she merely gave a link to and a quote from an article on the business relationship in question (a relationship you grossly misstated, which was my reason for responding to your post in the first place). It may be that you don't believe in flamewars, but as long as when you "state your case" it is based on hyperbole, gross distortion, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and evaporates completely when one compares your description of reality to the actual words in the original source, as long as you never admit to your fallacies when they are pointed out, you're going to generate flamewars.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 11:16 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If I may inject something... I don't think Steve Bergman's case relies on distortion; it seems just a mocking understatement. Groklaw actually said:Gates and Alwaleed have collaborated for at least two years. After attending a dinner at Gates's home in Bellevue, Washington, in early 2004, Alwaleed agreed to explore ways to assist Microsoft's expansion in Saudi Arabia.Fact is, it doesn't really matter if the magical prince only had lunch with Bill Gates or was a close personal friend. You would not expect a SCO founder to be a Red Hat stockholder; the fact that this guy was a business associate of Mr Gates would not surprise anyone. Big money talks a lot between itself. If we are going to mistrust everyone who does business with Microsoft then I think the entire computer industry is tainted. Ditto with Gates.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 19:15 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Thank you, man_ls, for the accurate clarification. In the long run... credibility is more valuable than the facts. PJ does a great job of presenting the facts. But she either does not realize how badly she compromises her own credibility (which would not be surprising considering the like-minded crowd which surrounds her on her site) or does not think that it matters. Or perhaps she is overconfident enough to think that we do not need to maintain credibility as a precious resource. I, personally, have found that being surrounded by a like-minded community is, in the long run, a liability. While I am a fervent advocate of Unix, Linux, and OSS, I tend to shun Linux-only news sites, these days, in favor of sites which cater to a very multi-platform oriented community. I consider LWN to be an exception due to the notably high quality of original material here. But even so, this thread has been an effective reminder of why I don't hang out with the choir as much as I used to.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 0:34 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Did you follow the link? Alwaleed didn't just have dinner at Gates' house and discuss using Microsoft software. He personally, along with Bill Gates and one other guy, pooled 4 billion dollars to buy a hotel chain. He's not just a Microsoft customer and one-time Gates dinner guest, he's a multi-billion-dollar personal business partner.Whether you think this is relevant to Alwaleed funding SCO is a matter reasonable people can disagree about. But at least get your facts straight; this is like the fourth or fifth time in this thread that I've had to point out the above fact.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 0:58 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ this is like the fourth or fifth time in this thread that I've had to point out the above """ Perhaps that is a good indication that "the above" is unconvincing, and that declaring "There's Waldo" based upon "the above" is unwise and compromises one's credibility. And if it is unconvincing on a site as biased against SCO and Microsoft as we are here... how convincing do you think it would be to more objective observers? Where's Waldo is a children's game, and should remain so. It's not a license for adults to jump to wild conclusions without reasonable evidence.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 16:35 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] It's not a question of whether you're convinced of anything, it's a question of whether you can describe the facts of the situation without gross distortion. Nor, apparently, are you able to acknowledge any correction that disagrees with your preconceived opinion.Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:30 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else. """ I consider that the evidence which you and PJ wave around, making declarations that "There's Waldo" is so far from conclusive as to qualify as comical. Your "facts" simply have a very limited relevance. I absolutely despise Microsoft. I want to see them gone. But please... come back with some real, relevant, conclusive facts. And then I will be more than willing to use them in my own advocacy of FOSS.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:53 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Well, there's your problem. You confuse facts with opinion. "There's Waldo" has never been thought a fact by anyone, except apparently you. No wonder you have so much trouble.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:55 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] You are, of course, free to opine that the evidence is inconclusive, or (more to the point) dispute the relevance of the funder's relationship with Gates. But that doesn't give you license to misrepresent what the evidence was.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 21:17 UTC (Mon) by jake (editor, #205) [Link] Ok, this looks like it has gone about as far as it needs to, doesn't it? I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's mind at this point and the thread is becoming annoying to some. jake
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 20, 2008 2:55 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Nor does it give him the right to call her psychotic. Psychotic is skinning your cat, putting your PJ's on it and putting it in your bed. Psychotic is also showing up at your home in the middle of the night with five or six knives, a shovel, a bag of lime and a bunch of trash bags. Making allusions to an alleged scheme between multi-billionaires is simply biased journalism, or more commonly, blogging. Personally I was always under the impression Groklaw was a blog, although there is some stupendous information there it's always been colored by PJ's feelings. Right or wrong that's just the way she runs her site, personally I don't mind. But calling her Psychotic for it is way over the line. Personally I think the OP owes her an apology for such a blatant public libel. psy·chot·ic [sahy-kot-ik] adjective 1. characterized by or afflicted with psychosis. psy·cho·sis [sahy-koh-sis] 1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality. 2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 20:20 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ There you go again, playing rhetorical games, putting thoughts into my head """ I really and truly think that you are taking this thread too personally.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 21:25 UTC (Sun) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] No, I really just think he's tired of you deciding what people think for them, and then attack it.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 22:40 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] As there is plausible evidence that MS has been involved in funding SCO in the past, it is a reasonable question for PJ to pose as to whether they are involved this time. And she pointed out that, indeed, the present funder has had multibillion-dollar business partnerships with Gates in the past. What conclusion to draw from this she left to the reader; reasonable people can disagree about the relevance of the funder's financial and personal relationship with Gates. If you had simply disagreed with her like a reasonable person, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you started by grossly distorting her evidence about the connection with Gates and calling her "psychotic," and things went downhill from there. That made your post(s) trollish. Thank you for switching to a more reasonable tone in your last post. (As for the Asus PC vs. XO, I don't think your or Nigel's characterization of her opinions on the subject are entirely accurate, but I have no interest in fighting over an offtopic thread. Nor do I always agree with PJ's judgements, but I don't think this makes her "psychotic.") PS. Speaking of unsubstantiated claims, "Steven" is the 18th most common first name in the US, and two surnames beginning with "J" are in the top five. It's sometimes annoying to have a common name.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:10 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Tell me about it. My first name is Steven, too. I absolutely agree about there being a lot of cirumstantial evidence regarding MS participation in the SCO investments. The Baystar thing even had some evidence which was not of the circumstantial variety. But her "Where's Waldo" game is just childish. And if you think being branded with a common name is a pain... believe me, being an enthusiastic, and long time member of a community "represented" by the likes of PJ and Eric Raymond is far worse. (I've been advocating Unix since 1988, and Linux since 1996.) PJ needs to wait until she has the facts before making accusations. That woman has done so much *good*! Why can't she be happy and stop there? Perhaps I should cut her some slack. It is reasonable to think that The SCO Group might have been behind that nasty expose' that Maureen O'Gara did back in early 2005. And I can't help but wonder how I would feel about a corrupt company which I was trying to expose, which then tried, rather unsuccessfully, to expose me back. But it does not change the fact that PJ, while providing a valuable service which helps the community, regularly goes off the edge and hurts it.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:37 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] PJ needs to wait until she has the facts before making accusations. What accusation did she make? Did she say that Gates was the actual source of the money? No. Did she say that Gates had suggested the funding? No. She simply reported a fact, that the new funder had a multibillion-dollar one-on-one business relationship with Bill Gates, and left the conclusion to the reader. Obviously, she thinks the relationship is potentially relevant; others may disagree, but nothing justifies your hyperbole. If you go back and read your description of what she said and what her evidence was, and compare it to your characterizations thereof, I would have hoped that it would inspire some admission that you were wrong in the way you attacked her (and dragged down the level of discussion).
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:58 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ What accusation did she make? Did she say that Gates was the actual source of the money? No. """ And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about. If we are going to try to fight the battle on that front... we are going to need to do a lot better than that. And honestly, how satisfying would it be to win that way, in any case? Better to provide superior functionality and value. MS used to define us as a cancer. But now they talk about value. People, in the final analysis, don't really care about what is right or wrong. They care about what they can get and how much, or little, it will cost them. Microsoft figured that out, and the sooner we do, the better. "Where's Waldo" is irrelevant, ineffectual, and counterproductive.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 17, 2008 1:07 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about. There you go again, attacking a straw (wo)man. Along with your ad hominem attacks, this is a time-honored way to score points in debates, but is not so effective at generating truly informative discussion (for those of us who are interested in that). PJ pointed out that the new funder of SCO is a personal business partner of Bill Gates. It's certainly a point of interest to anyone following the SCO saga, if nothing else, and is potentially relevant to understanding the situation and hence reasonable to report. No one has said or implied that the fact of this relationship is "enough to achieve victory," or anything even close to that. As for attacking what people supposedly "think" (rather than what they say), I shouldn't have to point out how contrived that is.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 10:09 UTC (Mon) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] "And as long as the OSS community thinks that kind of innuendo is enough to achieve victory Microsoft has nothing to worry about." Most of us base our predictions based on history and past experiences. The only thing Microsoft worries about is Linux surviving and possibly forcing more standards through. The minute they loose their grip on the market both Microsoft will be in for a real ride when people can start producing things that compete with them. You know the market is broken when its hard to compete even if you give your product away for free. "If we are going to try to fight the battle on that front... we are going to need to do a lot better than that." The "battle" is utterly one-sided and consists to 100% of Microsoft trying to keep Linux away from the market by any means possible. The community is not in any way in battle with anyone, just defending itself. "And honestly, how satisfying would it be to win that way, in any case?" Win what? There is no war, just MS trying to make that pesky Linux go away. "Better to provide superior functionality and value. MS used to define us as a cancer. But now they talk about value. People, in the final analysis, don't really care about what is right or wrong. They care about what they can get and how much, or little, it will cost them." Superior functionality and value means nothing and vendor lockin everything. Thats why most of the effort lies in getting open standards more used. Something that would benefit the whole market and not just Linux. Linux could be five hundred times better and still not making it in some places where all the bets are placed in locked in technology. "Microsoft figured that out, and the sooner we do, the better." There is nothing from Microsoft that Linux needs. Why would one want to mimic them instead of just buying their products if that is what you want? ""Where's Waldo" is irrelevant, ineffectual, and counterproductive." Its a game albeit one with a serious undertone. If someone manages to identify a smoking gun it would seriously put a real stop to Microsofts work on getting linux go away by various proxies who do the dirty work. This is not about the Linux community trying to kill MS by courts, its about stopping Microsoft from gaming the system in their effort of keeping the free market anything but free.
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 15:49 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You know the market is broken when its hard to compete even if you give your product away for free.Stores sell bottled water, even when the tap is there (almost) for free. Would you say the market for water is broken? It would be nice if we stopped lamenting ourselves and started thinking about why Windows is keeping its own against free alternatives. IMHO all we have to do is to convince people that Linux is not only for geeks. The rest will come on its own (as long as Linux continues to get better all the time).
Don't feed the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 18:49 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ It would be nice if we stopped lamenting ourselves and started thinking about why Windows is keeping its own against free alternatives. """ It would be more than nice. It would be *constructive*. Spreading innuendo regarding Microsoft does not improve our credibility. It is an indicator that we do not have confidence in our own product. Monopolies which are not natural monopolies have a natural life-cycle. Oh, the time scales can be excruciatingly glacial in nature. But nature takes its course, eventually. Like any corporation, they feel a need to expand their revenues. And yet they already have most of the market. So they have no choice but to try to extract more money from their existing client base. Microsoft will bring its own downfall upon itself. IMO, we worry way too much about hastening that event. Might as well push on a glacier. What we want to be is the greenery which strings up and takes over once the glacier has retreated. We would do best to improve ourselves, rather than wasting effort trying to push the glacier. Not the best analogy, perhaps. But I think it might help get my point across. We need to be worrying about our own business, not someone else's. And the rest will follow. Unless we want to go through all of this only to have Microsoft replaced by another proprietary, closed source player.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 21, 2008 5:10 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > Three hours and twelve minutes. I was timing how long it would take a PJ apologist to show up. It's shit like this that makes me really miss an "ignore fuckwit" option in LWN.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 18:07 UTC (Sun) by lokpest (guest, #45764) [Link] "Um, they did a bit more than have dinner." Uhm, what happens in the bedroom is their business! ;-)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 18, 2008 3:06 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Melinda might disagree on that count. ;-)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 13:12 UTC (Sat) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link] Maybe I missed something, but doesn't SCO have to pay 20% interest on their 100 million dollar loan PER YEAR. So, this whole deal works only out if some money starts to come into SCO, right now! As they mention restarting product development, that's supposedly what they will do. One of these products could be the long dead Linux tax business. At this point, it would require another lawsuit for anyone to pay (Autozone), but wouldn't that lawsuit be halted until the underlying issue in the IBM and Novell cases have been resolved? Due to the high interest rate I find it quite possible, that it's not Microsoft who is behind this.
Dividends, too. Posted Feb 16, 2008 16:09 UTC (Sat) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Don't forget the dividends that the preferred shareholders are entitled to -- that's another 10% annually. I'm surprised that the common stock has gone up to $0.0115 on this news. Momentum trading?
Dividends, too. Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:35 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ I'm surprised that the common stock has gone up to $0.0115 on this news. """ Errr... $0.115. Yeah, I know, SCOX has lost more than 99.9% of its value since Jan 2000... what's a factor of 10 here or there? ;-)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 19:20 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Just out of curiosity... are you the maintainer of a popular Python web programming framework?
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 20:26 UTC (Sun) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link] The answer to your question is: No.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 21:00 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] I thought that you might be Ben Bangert, maintainer of the Pylons web framework.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 15:37 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """ At some point IBM or Novell may tire of the whole thing and try to cut some kind of deal. """ IBM would never do that. They know that if they cave in on this, they will invite a host of other copycats attacking them on other fronts, hoping to cash in. When this said and done, nothing must remain of the SCO Group but a smoking crater where their building used to be. And a sign post that says "IBM was here". If they thought they could pierce the corporate veil and financially ruin Darl, Chris, and the other players, they'd do that, too. And the crowd would cheer.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 23:24 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Depends on what deal they cut. Dropping the counterclaims in return for $30 million wouldn't be bad. I mean, SCO has never shown any interest in having assets left in case of a judgment against them, so settling is about the only chance IBM and Novell have of getting their money. If I were looking for conspiracies, I'd actually look for this being a front for IBM and Novell associates behind the scenes burning a little cash and juggling a bit more cash in order for the bottom line of the SCO saga to come out: "SCO loses, pays IBM and Novell millions for nothing." And it remains to be seen whether SCO's executives and investors get anything personally, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're unhappy in the end, for reasons not directly traceable to SCO's actions, but obviously enough not unrelated.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:40 UTC (Sat) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] McBride will have to resign? Who'll bring the fun then? ;)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:44 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] McBride hasn't brought in any new viewers in a long time. You know how it is in the entertainment industry. Ever seen "Sunset Boulevard"? :-)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 16, 2008 21:53 UTC (Sat) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] Hehehe :D Still the hilarity of McBride's comments will be hard to beat :)
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 19:25 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Of course. The Carol Burnette Show was second to none. But it went off the air. In fact, Carol had enough class to realize that the show's time had come... even though it was still popular. (She explained, in at least one interview, that it was just getting too hard to come up with new ideas.) I've always had a huge respect for Carol for doing that. Darl, on the other hand, had about as much class as The Three Stooges. Which means, unfortunately, that we will be subjected to his re-runs for some years to come.
SCO to continue the fight? Posted Feb 17, 2008 7:54 UTC (Sun) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link] Is it this Stephen Norris? (from http://www.snpartners.com/norris.html) " Steve Norris was one of the co-founders of The Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C. serving as President of its management company from inception in 1987 to 1996. He will be Chairman of Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partner's Investment Committee and will principally focus on sourcing of investment opportunities and investment strategy, as well as structuring and negotiating investments and exits from investments. Mr. Norris was involved in the decision-making process in essentially every major Carlyle investment decision from its beginning as a $105 million fund that made investments of more than four times that amount through extensive use of co-investors and strategic partners. Those investments yielded an annual return on investment in excess of 40%. He also served on the boards of directors of major Carlyle portfolio companies. He was actively involved in recruiting all of Carlyle's current senior partners and played a major role in recruiting President George W. Bush to serve as a director of one of its portfolio companies and in enlisting former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci to be senior partners of Carlyle. Mr. Norris acted as a principal financial advisor to Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Al Saud of Kingdom Holding Company, in structuring and negotiating the re-capitalization of Citibank, which returned over $15 billion in profits on about $590 million of equity invested. He also advised or played a key role in other Kingdom Holding Company investments. He was appointed by former president George H.W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as one of five governing members of the $100 billion Federal Retirement System Thrift Investment Board. Since 1997, Mr. Norris, and certain members of his team, have worked on a number of investments including real estate investments in Europe and the United States. They were involved in amongst others the privatization of Thompson CSF, the recapitalization of Suez, the acquisition of portions of Credit Foncier's real estate portfolio in Paris by the German firm of IVG, the formation of Nomura's (London) bid for a Dutch mortgage bank, the offer by a major Saudia Arabian investment firm for Lamborgini in Italy, and the formation of a bid by Leucadia International's for the Labouchere Bank in Holland. He also negotiated and structured investments in Synxis Corporation, which was backed by George Soros and Mr. Norris, and MARC Global Holdings. Mr. Norris served as a law clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and earned a B.S. and J.D from the University of Alabama, was a fellow at Yale Law School and earned a L.L.M. in Taxation from New York University."
|
|||||||||||||