Scott Lemon reports rumour of massive layoff at SCO - SCO

This is a discussion on Scott Lemon reports rumour of massive layoff at SCO - SCO ; On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Bill Campbell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008, RedGrittyBrick wrote: > >Bill Campbell wrote: > >> > >> We have moved most of our clients to Linux over the years, originally > >> Caldera, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Scott Lemon reports rumour of massive layoff at SCO

  1. Re: OT: Linux Distros. Was Re: Confirmation of at least 5 morelayoffs.

    On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Bill Campbell wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008, RedGrittyBrick wrote:
    > >Bill Campbell wrote:
    > >>
    > >> We have moved most of our clients to Linux over the years, originally
    > >> Caldera, then SuSE, now CentOS,

    > >
    > >Out of interest, why the switch from SuSE to CentOS (and not RHEL)?

    >
    > This could be the start of another religious war :-).


    Yup...

    > We switched from SuSE primarily because of a lack of support from Novell
    > even though we were in their partner program.


    I have always used the mail lists. So that has never been an issue. I
    love SUSE Linux. I am currently using OpenSUSE 10.3.

    > I've never been particularly fond of Red Hat distributions, but far less
    > fond of the debian varieties (perhaps because I grew up on RPM based Linux
    > systems). Given that in the 42 years I've been pushing computers for a
    > living, I have rarely found any vendor support worthy of the name, and that
    > I know people heavily involved in CentOS, I figured that was preferable.


    I agree. I really dislike Red Hat all though I do use them were the
    applications and customer's dictate it. I found CentOS to be too much
    like RHS. So I have stayed with SUSE. I have used it since it's first
    release. I previously used Slackware. SUSE being a Slackware derivative.
    I find SUSE/OpenSUSE to be a bit more polished.


    --
    Boyd Gerber
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

  2. Re: OT: Linux Distros. Was Re: Confirmation of at least 5 morelayoffs.

    On Feb 8, 5:50 am, Jeff Hyman wrote:


    > What beer are you getting thats free?
    > I'm trying to correlate free beer to free CentOS.
    >
    > - Jeff H


    There is free as in freedom, for example software under the GPL, and
    free as in beer meaning no cost.
    CentOS is RHEL without the support contract costs. Thus it's free as
    in freedom and free as in beer.

    HTH
    HAND

    Peace,
    Dave

  3. Re: OT: Linux Distros. Was Re: Confirmation of at least 5 morelayoffs.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bill Campbell"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:12 PM
    Subject: Re: OT: Linux Distros. Was Re: Confirmation of at least 5
    morelayoffs.


    > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008, RedGrittyBrick wrote:
    >>Bill Campbell wrote:
    >>>
    >>> We have moved most of our clients to Linux over the years, originally
    >>> Caldera, then SuSE, now CentOS,

    >>
    >>Out of interest, why the switch from SuSE to CentOS (and not RHEL)?

    >
    > This could be the start of another religious war :-).
    >
    > We switched from SuSE primarily because of a lack of support from Novell
    > even though we were in their partner program.
    >
    > I've never been particularly fond of Red Hat distributions, but far less
    > fond of the debian varieties (perhaps because I grew up on RPM based Linux
    > systems). Given that in the 42 years I've been pushing computers for a
    > living, I have rarely found any vendor support worthy of the name, and
    > that
    > I know people heavily involved in CentOS, I figured that was preferable.


    Thats somewhat like why I use opensuse and not sles.
    I don't mind paying -something- for the commercial use, but mainly the
    compatibility (with the most other users) is worth more than any amount of
    vendor support. The fact that the vendor support isn't really, just makes it
    a no-brainer.
    By using opensuse, I never run into the problem of somebody made a suse rpm
    for package foo, but they did it on opensuse and it doesn't install cleanly
    or doesn't even work at all on sles. And the reverse never happens.
    Googling for hints or other peoples experiences yields a lot more opensuse
    results than sles.

    I did want a dist that would make some attempt at being predictable and
    backwards compatible as far as usage and administration. Yast is a plain
    life saver too. So that means popularity is a factor but not the only one,
    so that cuts out things like the new ubuntu server version.

    Like any dist it has it's quirks, but I feel it's been a good choice that
    worked out well.

    I think the most important thing is not opensuse or centos or whatever, but
    just pick any dist that is mature and is not likely to dissappear or change
    radically, then just sick with it so you don't wind up with a bunch of boxes
    that are all different over time and so you end up with more detailed
    knowledge of your dist than just general linux know-how. There are several
    that fit that bill I think. It's somewhat just luck too. I probably would
    have chosen Caldera had we made our switch when they were still around.

    Really, I think the reverse question is the one to ask. Why would anyone use
    rhel or sles?
    What value do they add thats worth the hassle?

    --
    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  4. Re: OT: Linux Distros. Was Re: Confirmation of at least 5 morelayoffs.



    On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Brian K. White wrote:

    >
    >> I've never been particularly fond of Red Hat distributions, but far less
    >> fond of the debian varieties (perhaps because I grew up on RPM based Linux
    >> systems). Given that in the 42 years I've been pushing computers for a
    >> living, I have rarely found any vendor support worthy of the name, and
    >> that
    >> I know people heavily involved in CentOS, I figured that was preferable.

    >
    > Thats somewhat like why I use opensuse and not sles.
    > I don't mind paying -something- for the commercial use, but mainly the
    > compatibility (with the most other users) is worth more than any amount of
    > vendor support. The fact that the vendor support isn't really, just makes it
    > a no-brainer.
    > By using opensuse, I never run into the problem of somebody made a suse rpm
    > for package foo, but they did it on opensuse and it doesn't install cleanly
    > or doesn't even work at all on sles. And the reverse never happens.
    > Googling for hints or other peoples experiences yields a lot more opensuse
    > results than sles.
    >
    > I did want a dist that would make some attempt at being predictable and
    > backwards compatible as far as usage and administration. Yast is a plain
    > life saver too. So that means popularity is a factor but not the only one,
    > so that cuts out things like the new ubuntu server version.
    >
    > Like any dist it has it's quirks, but I feel it's been a good choice that
    > worked out well.
    >
    > I think the most important thing is not opensuse or centos or whatever, but
    > just pick any dist that is mature and is not likely to dissappear or change
    > radically, then just sick with it so you don't wind up with a bunch of boxes
    > that are all different over time and so you end up with more detailed
    > knowledge of your dist than just general linux know-how. There are several
    > that fit that bill I think. It's somewhat just luck too. I probably would
    > have chosen Caldera had we made our switch when they were still around.
    >
    > Really, I think the reverse question is the one to ask. Why would anyone use
    > rhel or sles?
    > What value do they add thats worth the hassle?


    RHEL's value (and I suspect SLES' also) is 2 things:
    1. A distribution that is supported for 5 years, with libraries that
    will be stable during that time.
    2. Support.
    Centos gets you #1 for free.

    The stability enables closed source apps to be developed and distributed
    on the platform.

    Red Hat is a lot nicer than it was. The virtualization capability is
    excellent and easy to use. OTOH, Ubuntu gives a very nice desktop system,
    but I would not advise using it if there are any closed source
    applications required to run on the platform.

  5. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    JD wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:
    >
    >> http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591
    >>
    >> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    >> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    >> office is on the brink of closing.

    >
    > A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    > http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf
    >
    > People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    > SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    > maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.
    >
    > To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    > business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the company
    > if all the expertise has left or been fired?
    >


    To put a stake through Darl McBride's litigous wallet, open the source code that is not owned by Novell so that some of can keep the applications we rely on alive, and make a few bucks off of a few customers as they migrate to something more supportable?

  6. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    foolsrushout wrote:
    > JD wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591
    >>>
    >>> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    >>> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    >>> office is on the brink of closing.

    >>
    >>
    >> A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    >> http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf
    >>
    >> People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    >> SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    >> maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.
    >>
    >> To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    >> business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the
    >> company if all the expertise has left or been fired?

    >
    > Back when AT&T was the sole owner of sysV source code
    > it was so terribly overpriced that people in various
    > parts of the world actually got together to clone it
    > well enough to make AT&T's version worth a whole lot
    > less. That level of success has taken a long time.


    ??? You mean BSD? BSD wasn't a clone. There was a great deal of similarity, but far too much difference to be considered a clone. A more flexible sibling, sure. I used to do quite a bit of back and forth porting between BSD, open source tools, and SysV based operating systems.

    > AT&T saw the handwriting on the wall and bailed.
    > Their corporate culture (now Lucent) has never
    > managed to achieve the achieved the transition
    > from a protected monopoly mindset to free market
    > strategies.
    >
    > Now the whole sysV thing is sinking as linux has
    > become a viable OS and MS has become a more or
    > less mature product.


    SCO didn't help. They absolutely poisoned the well for SysV.

    > I was sorry to see Coherent, and independent cloning
    > endeavor, go down the tubes some years back. As as
    > someone who had to run sysV on 80286 and 80386
    > machines I'm not sorry to see the AT&T versions
    > finally disappearing. And I'm one of those people
    > whose first exposure to computers was sysV machines.
    > Only later, when I discovered there was a whole
    > other viable pocketful of working operating systems
    > did I realize what a jackass AT&T had become. To me
    > it seemed as though that mentality followed the
    > product line once AT&T sold out to SCO.
    >
    > Perhaps it is, after all, best suited to telephone
    > switching service.


    Umm. I'm seeing RedHat based VoIP take the place of a lot of that infrastructure.

  7. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    Nym.Faux@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Feb 7, 10:14 am, mbennett
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> ask meaningful questions
    >> about my business purposes in using SCO products, nor the purposes of
    >> my clients and their businesses, nor the applications which we use.
    >>
    >> Therefore, I dismiss your shallow and thoughtless comments as trivial
    >> and without value or purpose. Please go away.
    >>
    >> Mark

    >
    > I'll bite. Why are you still using SCO Products and for what
    > purposes?
    > Do you have migration plans if worse comes tor worst?
    >
    > I'm asking because all of my clients have moved on to different
    > flavors of the SVR4 code base or, more recently, Linux.
    >
    > Peace,
    > Dave


    I *am* the migration plan. I'm switching sytems as fast as feasible to RHEL, having adventures with porting code and maintaining the existing infrastructure while doing so.

    That reminds me. Has *ANYONE* got an emacs that works under 5.0.6, after doing all the gwxlibs, oss646, and other updates? I've got to port quite a lot of compiled source code, and doing it in vi is wiping out my hands, especially coupled with the poor screensize handling under SCO's excuse for an xterm.

  8. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    On Feb 9, 8:31*am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > JD wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:

    >
    > >>http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591

    >
    > >> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    > >> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    > >> office is on the brink of closing.

    >
    > > A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    > >http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf

    >
    > > People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    > > SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    > > maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.

    >
    > > To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    > > business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the company
    > > if all the expertise has left or been fired?

    >
    > To put a stake through Darl McBride's litigous wallet, open the source code that is not owned by Novell so that some of can keep the applications we rely on alive, and make a few bucks off of a few customers as they migrate tosomething more supportable?- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    We use OSR6 and it works great for us. One of the best things about
    SCO is that this newsgroup had regular posters who know what they are
    talking about. In most linux forums you have script kiddies offering
    dubious advice and 99% crud where absolute morons who got the distro
    for free ask lots and lots and lots of dumb questions. I use OpenBSD
    and Linux too but i have to tell you our critical business application
    runs on SCO and it actually works well, whenever i've had any issues
    with SCO I have used this forum and got through quickly to a useful
    answer. The developers of our business software still use SCO. If
    it works and is reliabale then dont change unless you have to or there
    is a competitive advantage to.

  9. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.



    On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, James_Szabadics wrote:

    > On Feb 9, 8:31*am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> JD wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:

    >>
    >>>> http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591

    >>
    >>>> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    >>>> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    >>>> office is on the brink of closing.

    >>
    >>> A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    >>> http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf

    >>
    >>> People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    >>> SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    >>> maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.

    >>
    >>> To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    >>> business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the company
    >>> if all the expertise has left or been fired?

    >>
    >> To put a stake through Darl McBride's litigous wallet, open the source code that is not owned by Novell so that some of can keep the applications we rely on alive, and make a few bucks off of a few customers as they migrate to something more supportable?- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > We use OSR6 and it works great for us. One of the best things about
    > SCO is that this newsgroup had regular posters who know what they are
    > talking about. In most linux forums you have script kiddies offering
    > dubious advice and 99% crud where absolute morons who got the distro
    > for free ask lots and lots and lots of dumb questions. I use OpenBSD
    > and Linux too but i have to tell you our critical business application
    > runs on SCO and it actually works well, whenever i've had any issues
    > with SCO I have used this forum and got through quickly to a useful
    > answer. The developers of our business software still use SCO. If
    > it works and is reliabale then dont change unless you have to or there
    > is a competitive advantage to.


    Thus proving that some posters in this group are in denial.

    Yes, just because the company shuts down does not mean that your
    Openserver installations will immediately shut down, but what's your
    migration plan? I doubt that there are many people here who will support
    the idea that Openserver has a long life ahead of it.

    If you don't have a migration plan for your company's critical
    applications then, in my opinion, you are doing a poor job for your
    company. Given SCO's rapidly declining market share and relevency, how
    much longer do you think that your app developers will continue to support
    the OS?

    >


  10. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    On Feb 11, 3:53*pm, jd wrote:
    > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, James_Szabadics wrote:
    > > On Feb 9, 8:31*am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > >> JD wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:

    >
    > >>>>http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591

    >
    > >>>> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    > >>>> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    > >>>> office is on the brink of closing.

    >
    > >>> A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    > >>>http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf

    >
    > >>> People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    > >>> SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    > >>> maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.

    >
    > >>> To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    > >>> business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the company
    > >>> if all the expertise has left or been fired?

    >
    > >> To put a stake through Darl McBride's litigous wallet, open the source code that is not owned by Novell so that some of can keep the applications we rely on alive, and make a few bucks off of a few customers as they migrateto something more supportable?- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > We use OSR6 and it works great for us. *One of the best things about
    > > SCO is that this newsgroup had regular posters who know what they are
    > > talking about. *In most linux forums you have script kiddies offering
    > > dubious advice and 99% crud where absolute morons who got the distro
    > > for free ask lots and lots and lots of dumb questions. *I use OpenBSD
    > > and Linux too but i have to tell you our critical business application
    > > runs on SCO and it actually works well, whenever i've had any issues
    > > with SCO I have used this forum and got through quickly to a useful
    > > answer. *The developers of our business software still use SCO. * If
    > > it works and is reliabale then dont change unless you have to or there
    > > is a competitive advantage to.

    >
    > Thus proving that some posters in this group are in denial.
    >
    > Yes, just because the company shuts down does not mean that your
    > Openserver installations will immediately shut down, but what's your
    > migration plan? I doubt that there are many people here who will support
    > the idea that Openserver has a long life ahead of it.
    >
    > If you don't have a migration plan for your company's critical
    > applications then, in my opinion, you are doing a poor job for your
    > company. Given SCO's rapidly declining market share and relevency, how
    > much longer do you think that your app developers will continue to support
    > the OS?
    >
    >
    >
    > - Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    When we decide that migration is required or advantageous then a
    detailed plan will be furnished, budgeted, implemented and reviewed.
    All I'm saying is that at this time there is no compelling reason to
    shift this application. It is supported by the application developers
    on SCO and Linux is still very very new to them and it is running on
    recent (2007) hardware that is likely to meet the needs until at least
    2010. In 2009 we will look at the options unless the developer shifts
    their position re support of SCO in the meanwhile we are happy where
    we are.

    Don't Panic! , I have my towel. If SCO Group disappeared from the
    face of the earth tomorrow then the impact on my business is
    negligible! They wont get my business next upgrade if they dont
    exist. I dont want to be in the panic application port brigade but
    would rather do it at a natural hardware replacement cycle or sooner
    if* there is some issue with SCO support from the application
    developers.




  11. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    In jd:

    [Snip..]

    > you think that your app developers will continue to support the OS?


    Denial: Jeffrey Skilling on perpetual retainer for gas pipeline expertise.

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  12. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    James_Szabadics wrote:
    > Don't Panic! , I have my towel. If SCO Group disappeared from the
    > face of the earth tomorrow then the impact on my business is
    > negligible! They wont get my business next upgrade if they dont
    > exist. I dont want to be in the panic application port brigade but
    > would rather do it at a natural hardware replacement cycle or sooner
    > if* there is some issue with SCO support from the application
    > developers.


    I agree. I have always gotten great assistance from the folks on the
    SCO Newsgroups - I have several clients currently running applications
    on several releases of SCO (and have a couple I use for support that we
    won't even discuss their age) and the systems run fine and with limited
    or no exposure to the outside world and their continued reliability and
    little if ever need to contact SCO support why should they run out and
    force a conversion. Their applications would move quite easily to
    Linux but I'm not in the market to force my customers to change if it
    is not necessary. The fact that SCO doesn't exist any more will not
    really affect them until they decide to upgrade and then we will need
    to discuss other avenues.

    bk


  13. Re: Confirmation of at least 5 more layoffs.

    In article <47ACE652.90502@gmail.com>,
    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >JD wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, jd wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=24273591
    >>>
    >>> He says that he has heard from "numerous sources" that 30-40 people
    >>> have been laid off, with only 50-70 remaining and that the New Jersey
    >>> office is on the brink of closing.

    >>
    >> A recent filing in the BK court shows 5 layoffs.
    >> http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-333.pdf
    >>
    >> People with 10+ years of service appear to be getting a pittance from
    >> SCO in severance benefits. Meanwhile the ability of the company to
    >> maintain and support Openserver is clearly dying.
    >>
    >> To those who smugly suggested that there would be a buyout of the Unix
    >> business and support would continue -- why would anyone buy the company
    >> if all the expertise has left or been fired?
    >>


    >To put a stake through Darl McBride's litigous wallet, open the
    >source code that is not owned by Novell so that some of can keep
    >the applications we rely on alive, and make a few bucks off of a
    >few customers as they migrate to something more supportable?


    I've just switched news providers as my DSL provider has changed
    and things just stopped, so this may be late.

    Just this AM I see that a group is looking to buy SCO for
    $100million, with one of the provisos that McBride step down
    'immediately'. This is of course when SCO comes out of bankruptcy
    and with court approval.

    This was on the Computerworld newsletter this AM.

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2