Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

SCO to Unix developers, We want you back 427

NoGuffCheck writes "CRN is reporting that Darl McBride is looking to get Unix developers back onboard with cash incentives for completing training in SCO's new mobile application kit; EdgeBuilder. It doesn't stop there; there's a 12-cylinder BMW or $100,000 dollars for the development of the best wireless application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO to Unix developers, We want you back

Comments Filter:
  • Re:What a waste (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:07PM (#15576390)
    What I would like to know is why is HP & MySQL helping to finance this?!? What a way to get company blacklisted - especially a GPL project.
  • by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:10PM (#15576413)
    It is inevitable that there will be a shareholder lawsuit as SCO makes its final circles around the drain before bankruptcy or liquidation. Darth Darl needs to make it look like he made his best effort at keeping the company afloat to have a chance of keeping all of his money.
  • Lost trust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:10PM (#15576418) Homepage Journal
    I don't think they will be able to find enough developers that will trust them. They're already trying to steal the work of countless others, the sentiment goes, why would we try to do business with them again?

    This is why their former customers are not going to be future customers, unless they're badly locked in on some 3rd party software. And non-customers will never become customers. Who wants to do business with somebody who'll sue you for moving to a competitor's product? It's like getting divorced from a gold-digger.

  • Prisoners dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbeaupre ( 752124 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:13PM (#15576440)
    Sounds like a versio of the prisoners dilemma http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma / [stanford.edu]

    Except in theis case it's developers avoiding working for SCO. But the less who do, the better the chances for someone else to get the prize. So there's an incentive to break ranks. Maybe be the one and only developer.

    Think of it as a lottery with your integrity against winning a fast car.
  • Hmmm... on a completely cough random topic, I think I might switch from MySQL to Postgres.

    HP, I could care less about (their computers are cheap, and their calculators are nothing like they used to be), but I thought that MySQL had a decent set of morals. The fact that they could maintain enterprise support while still offering an open-source version is an indication of that. (Although I believe some of the MySQL products are available only to enterprise customers, which is evil.)

  • Re:Ring Tones? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mackermacker ( 250587 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:15PM (#15576454) Homepage

    Not surprising at all... SCO is now like VRML, a technology that was always looking for a purpose, rather than technology trying to solve a purpose. It almost reminds you of this company in the year 2k in SF, Istorage I want to say? The original business model was to provide 25MB of FREE storage space that you could access anytime! BY 2002, they had become a design studio or something.

    Companies have to keep rolling, so the executives can keep the money and options going.

  • by PFI_Optix ( 936301 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:17PM (#15576472) Journal
    I'm confused by this post. I just have to ask you to clarify...

    Are you saying that MySQL is immoral/evil because they *gasp* charge for some things they invest time and money to develop, or is my sarcasm meter broken?
  • by mmell ( 832646 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:19PM (#15576490)
    . . . opportunity. After all, consider: once SCO finally goes bankrupt (and I have little doubt that eventually, they will) their "intellectual property" (what they retain of it) will become the property of their creditors, who will almost certainly not make it commercially available. That (IIRC) will make SCO's OS de facto public domain. Those elements of SCO's OS which are not their IP will likewise almost certainly end up as either public domain or GPL'ed.

    Since there are businesses out there still using SCO's products, there will be a market for professionals specifically trained and qualified to administer those products (even if only long enough to migrate to something else).

  • by SwedishChef ( 69313 ) <craig@networkessentials . n et> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:22PM (#15576512) Homepage Journal
    and they can't wait for their apps to make the move to Linux. One customer - and this is an end user - is talking openly about the "end of SCO". Another moved to an application running on an IBM i5 (the modern version of the AS400). If there is any cost involved to an upgrade or a fix, SCO customers often just move on to another platform. There is now an entire mini-industry involved in converting data on SCO servers to some other server.

    Besides, even the latest versions of SCO/unix seriously suck. We swapped out a tape drive in one and it took days to get it running and required lots of phone time. Until I started on this project I had forgotten how difficult Linux was in 1993; that's where SCO is now.

    Plus no bash shell. No up-arrow command scrolling. Arggh!
  • Re:Prisoners dilemma (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dbc001 ( 541033 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:26PM (#15576535)
    taking a grand from SCO doesn't have to cost you your integrity. there's no commit to do any development is there? just go through the training. sleep through it even! or is there some fine print that i missed?
  • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:29PM (#15576561)
    HP, I could care less about (their computers are cheap, and their calculators are nothing like they used to be), but I thought that MySQL had a decent set of morals. The fact that they could maintain enterprise support while still offering an open-source version is an indication of that.

    I'm confused by this post. I just have to ask you to clarify...

    Are you saying that MySQL is immoral/evil because they *gasp* charge for some things they invest time and money to develop, or is my sarcasm meter broken?


    No, I think he means mysql is evil because they are sponsoring SCO's disgusting attempt to buy their way out of the history books and back into mainstream corporate and technology circles. I happen to agree...MySQL is more evil than companies like HP et.al. for the very reason he cited: they are in the free software community, they know the issues, and they certainly cannot be ignorant of how Darl McBride and SCO tried to steal GNU/Linux from its creators (yes, steal, because if McBride et.al. had succeeded in their fraud, the creators of the Linux kernel, and perhaps the wider GNU community, would have been denied the right to legally use their own creations), and they've chosen to sponsor this despite that knowledge. At least a big company like HP may not have followed this (all the SCO bruhaha could be beneath their radar).

    I agree that sponsoring an evil knowing its full implications is an act of greater maliciousness than sponsoring an evil in ignorance of its full implications, and MySQL certainly appears to fall in the former category.

    It's a pity...I actually like their product. Time to give postgres a gander I suppose.
  • First, my major point was that any company that sponsors SCO or their activities is evil.

    Second, what I was saying is that, given that MySQL's business model involves, for the most part, giving away software and selling support, and given that they've gotten a lot of help from open-source developers, I think it would be better and nicer if they gave away all of their software, and charged for support, just like they do with the MySQL database itself. I would wager that the higher-end enterprise stuff is pretty complex to configure, and most companies would be happy to pay for support instead of wandering around trying to figure it out themselves.

  • Re:Lost trust (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gihan_ripper ( 785510 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:37PM (#15576617) Homepage

    I'm sure there are plenty of less-than-ethical developers who wouldn't scoff at the potential of a BMW (note the article says 10-cyclinder whereas the summary says 12-cylinder) or the $100,000. Developers don't own their work, so the question of stealing work becomes irrelevant. The relevant question is whether an SCO manager will just give the cash prize to his nephew.

    To reiterate: developers aren't clients so the trust question doesn't arise, or at least takes a different form.

  • Re:Sorry SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by irenaeous ( 898337 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:43PM (#15576660) Journal

    You are absolutely right. I worked on SCO systems as a contractor for TACO BELL for a few years programming and maintaining their back of house software used on PC's in the store. They had an effort to create a windows based in-store system, but that has been abandoned. Now, they are porting their back of house applications to SUSE Linux with a view to getting off of SCO systems as soon as they can. The same is true, I believe for their fellow Yum brands company, Pizza Hut.

    This latest move by SCO is desperation -- trying to find some new market in which to stay alive while their bread and butter UnixWare and OpenServer business withers and dies. SCO is going down.

  • Mysql + SCO???? WTF (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brennz ( 715237 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:44PM (#15576670)
    http://www.sco.com/products/mysql/ [sco.com]

    This is disgusting.

    Mysql AB should be ashamed of themselves for this blatant support of an OSS attacker.

    Postgresql
    +better ANSI compliance
    +ACID
    +not a toy database
    +doesn't support SCO finances

    Make your move today!
  • Biztones... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by no_pets ( 881013 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:46PM (#15576680)
    My former CIO would definitely go for a "biztone". Basically he already had them except that they were text messages that would be paged to some of us in the department. Various (quasi-)informative messages such as "Day End processing completed", "payroll processing completed" and "interface XYZ has failed", "interface XYZ restarted automatically". Stupid shit like that. He'd probably assign them all a separate "biztone" or something.

    Of course we had fun with it. We made up our own messages such as "lunchtime", "time to go home". He was such a PHB. I'm sure other PHBes would like biztones as well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:56PM (#15576759)
    No, I think he means mysql is evil because they are sponsoring SCO's disgusting attempt to buy their way out

    iirc, it was SCO who paid mysql money for them to support SCO users, not the other way around.
  • by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:07PM (#15576838) Homepage Journal
    OpenServer (at least v5.0.5 which I have) is weird. It's better documented than Linux is and can ever hope to be - the docs are more consistent, more accurate, more complete, and better written. It's also incredibly stable in most ways - but with a few REALLY annoying quirks. As it's also stable in the same way a fossil is (What, buy and upgrade? Get bent), that's frustrating. It also has some incredibly annoying limitations, a set of developer tools so bad they boggle the mind (and the alternatives aren't great either - haven't got Skunkware's gcc WORKING yet), and some basic services we're used to just being there ... well ... aren't. Oh, and printing on SCO is one of the worst messes I've ever had the misfortune to work with - it makes Linux printing look like heaven, and it's pretty awful too. If you now feel the need to scour your eyes with steel wool, you're not alone.

    I maintain an OpenServer box for work only because of a legacy app that requires it. Well, strictly, the app requires Microsoft Xenix to run - it's from 1983 (!!) - but SCO OpenServer's XENIX kernel personality does the trick with a few quirks. OpenServer at least supports PCI, >16MB RAM, and >512MB disks, unlike XENIX. (OpenServer 5.0.5 actually supports up to 2TB disks/arrays, >137GB ATA disks, etc. Not bad for an OS from 1995). If it weren't for that need - which Linux can't satisfy even with the defunct ibcs project - I'd be rid of OpenServer in an instant. Linux 2.6 isn't as stable as I'd like, but that's worth it ... and there's always Solaris as an alternative.

    I can't imagine anybody buying OpenServer now. Its only purpose is legacy support. Unixware doesn't even have that. Before Sun released Solaris for free, they had a tiny sliver of hope from people who need more stability than Linux provides ... but with a free Solaris, they're just doomed. RHEL and so on help a fair bit with regards to stability in Linux too - something which also doesn't help SCO in the slightest.

    Even if their technology wasn't obsolete crap, who on earth would buy from a company that sues its own customers? Oh, wait, I use Microsoft software at work and I'm well aware of its involvement in the BSA & BSAA so that's no argument at all... but the obsolete crap point holds.
  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:27PM (#15577001)
    I've called for support on their printers...and they ended up on my "do not buy" list.

    Yes, it was an end-user printer. So? I rate a company based first on my experiences with it, then on reports from other people. That inevitably means that if their consumer products are shoddy, I will consider the company a manufacturer of shoddy goods. And HP isn't quite there...the printer is cheap, but not shoddy. Their technical support, however, is shoddy.

    I don't expect the kind of quality from a commercial product that I expect from a professional level product, but if a company cheats one set of users, then the company is a cheat and cannot be trusted with a more expensive purchase. It's true that some companies beleive in only cheating the mass-market customers...or at least that there are voices that proclaim so. (But voices are cheap, and astroturfing has been with us for a long time, and I don't know WHO wrote the post I'm replying to.)

    OTOH, HP *used* to make quality merchandise. When it did so, it advertised the fact. I still remember their ad about the HP-51 (I think it was) calculator that fell off the hood of a jeep in Alaska, and was buried in the road all winter, chewed up by a snow-plow the next summer, and still worked. Been a long time since I've seen one of those ads.

    I remember the disk drive company (not HP) back when auto-parking heads first came out that noted at the show that the drive they were running from had fallen down two flights of stairs onto a concrete loading deck while they were unpacking the exhibit. (Well, that's not remarkable anymore, but at the time it was startling.)

    Computers have, in general, become more durable. HP seems to have been defying the trend. Perhaps their very expensive models are better...but I prefer to get to know a company through inexpensive purchases. If they work out, then I move them up the purchase pyramid. I rarely buy something expensive from a company as my first deal with them. HP has been moving DOWN the pyramid. They used to be near the top. Now ... well, I still buy replacement ink-jet cartridges with their brand on it. Until I chose my next printer. After that they are likely to be totally OFF my purchase list. And it's their technical support that made that final difference...but it was decreasing quality that got them moved NEAR to the bottom.
  • by evil_Tak ( 964978 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:38PM (#15577092)

    Is there anything that actually shows Mysql is supporting SCO? Or is SCO just using their product the same way it's using Apache and perl and PHP?

    Kind of ironic that they call themselves a 'SCAMP' stack...

  • Re:What a waste (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CODiNE ( 27417 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:58PM (#15577271) Homepage
    SCO is trying to promote its alternative to LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) with SCAMP (SCO, Apache, etc.).

    Nice name there! I thought you were making that up, but they actually named their product SCAMP. Here it is, straight from my dictionary:

    scamp 1 |skamp| noun informal a person, esp. a child, who is mischievous in a likable or amusing way. a wicked or worthless person; a rogue. DERIVATIVES scampish adjective ORIGIN mid 18th cent.(denoting a highwayman): from obsolete scamp [rob on the highway,] probably from Middle Dutch schampen 'slip away,' from Old French eschamper 'flee the battlefield,' from champ 'field.'

    Wow! Amazing marketing there... sign up today for SCO's highway robbery!
  • by schon ( 31600 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:06PM (#15577352)
    I maintain an OpenServer box for work only because of a legacy app that requires it. Well, strictly, the app requires Microsoft Xenix to run - it's from 1983 (!!) [...] - which Linux can't satisfy even with the defunct ibcs project

    I've just finished moving a company from a similar thing. It required some modifications to x286emul, but it runs flawlessly (and *much* faster) on Linux than on OpenSewer.
  • by Clovert Agent ( 87154 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @03:17PM (#15577908)
    SCO criticism is mostly all valid, but this is just wrong. SCOX has been holding steady at ~4.20 for months and months - it's all insiders peddling tiny volume. It was in freefall, oh, a couple of years ago, but it's stable now and it ain't going anywhere.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c= [yahoo.com]

  • You'd /hope/ so! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Morosoph ( 693565 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @03:25PM (#15577966) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine who is a freelance engineer found that an engineer at one place he was contracting hadn't heard of Linux (this was a few months ago!)

    If you act automatically, send in your CV, stay within "course boundaries" etcetera, it can be amazing what you miss!
  • by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:51PM (#15579221) Homepage Journal
    Probably not any programmers with real Unix/Linux experience,

    Aye, there's the rub!

    there are a lot of developers out there who don't know about this stuff.

    See, if they were finding it easy to hire coders of the required standard, then they'd hardly need to pull a stunt like this one in order to attract talent. And if they are having problems todays job market where there are still coders unemployed from the dot bomb crash, then I suspect word must have pretty much permeated the *nix community.

    Unless of course the whole thing is purely a scam to bilk developers out of their fees. That I might believe.

    Personally I think I'm tending toward Option C: "Both of the above"

  • by Alan Hicks ( 660661 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @08:21PM (#15579590) Homepage
    Can somebody who has actually used either UnixWare or OpenServer say if they have any redeeming qualities at all?

    I'll do what I can to the best of my ability. One of my clients has an OpenServer box, but it is very old and even predates the buyout of SCO UNIX by Caldera. Therefor most of my knowledge is rather dated and may not apply to what is current.

    From what I've read, they are actually the least capable of the modern unixes or unix-clones, even on x86(except perhaps for minix - which was just a teaching project anyway). Is there any reason why anybody would choose UnixWare or OpenServer for a new deployment?

    OpenServer is a joke compared to modern UNIX and UNIX work-a-likes such as Linux or the BSDs. Clients I've known who have had OpenServer have invariably migrated away from it with one exception, and they will likely do so soon. Those people who are still using OpenServer are doing so not because they necessarily choose it, but because they chose some proprietary application for their business that was created to run on SCO OpenServer during it's hayday.

    For example, my client has been using OpenServer for probably close to ten years. They purchased it as part of a software package to handle certain needs. The company that produced this software is still in business, but no longer supports OpenServer. This has created a need for my client to migrate away from OpenServer, though perhaps not from the specific software. Naturally they will be involving us in their evaluation of a new software suite to handle their needs, and OpenServer will be immediately shot down. Even had The SCO Group never sued Linux users (we actually got one of their cease-and-desist letters) we would not consider them for the following primary reasons:

    • Lack of hardware support
    • Lack of software support
    • Uncertain future

    The last is a bit of a misnomer. I'm almost 100% certain that OpenServer will cease to be developed at all within the next two years and will probably be abandonware Real Soon Now. Even if there was only say a 20% chance that SCO will loose it all, why would anyone bet their hard-earned cash on something with those odds when other products are equally fit for the task and don't have one foot in the grave?

    It sounds like they think they have is a niffty middle-ware stack for cellphones and they want to use that as a hook for selling their Unix stuff. But if their middle-ware stack is so niffty that it would attract developers, why not port it to other systems to widen the audience and build a new business on that? That was the strategy taken by 'old SCO' aka Tarantella before they unloaded unix on Caldera.

    Probably because their middle-ware is really vaporware. I mean come on! Custom ring-tones? Even if the ring-tone business is as big as they claim to be, I have a hard time believing corporations will be interested in "biztones". IMHO, custom ring tones are popular only to teenagers and people in their early twenties. These people are not business managers and probably aren't involved in business beyond starting the timer on the fry cooker. Moreover, The SCO Group doesn't have any established means of targetting this crowd. The SCO Group has always been a business-to-business corporation, not a business-to-consumer corporation. This entire move reeks of a company attempting to convince others that they are innovating and breaking into a whole new market with a new killer product. Of course, they don't have the means to do this, so even if it is feasible for some one to do, it isn't going to be The SCO Group that accomplishes it. Other businesses know this, so SCO tacked on the whole "we're courting UNIX developers with huge prizes including a new BMW and/or $100,000".

  • Re:Sorry SCO (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @10:27PM (#15580086)
    I believe that Sherwin-Williams did this two years ago by switching from SCO in their stores to IBM Suse Linux for a total of 9000+ pc's and SCO was NOT happy about it. At leats that's what I remember reading, but it's been two years.
  • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday June 22, 2006 @12:52AM (#15580608) Journal
    It's still the right thing to do.

    I'm sure if McBride quit right now, he could find some job that someone would take him for, somewhere. It might be McDonalds, but it would be a living.

    As it is, well, you said it, they will undoubtably be torn apart. All this tells me is that like Enron, the execs who made all the fuckups will get off with a warning and a pile of cash, and the hard-working people who never liked the company in the first place will get the shaft.

    Which means, he may ultimately win, but I doubt if he can sleep at night.

    Which reminds me -- one of the benefits of a small business is that you know everyone, from the smallest file clerk to the owner of the company. It means you have a much more personal motivation to make the company succeed, or to go down with the ship. It's a lot easier to jump ship with a large severance package if you only really know other people who can do the same... and the US government supports Big Business.

    It's too late for conspiracy theories, though, I'll need my sanity tomorrow. Draw your own conclusions, Slashdot.

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...