SCO Terminates Darl McBride 458
bpechter writes "Linux Today reports SCO has terminated Darl McBride and linked to the SCO 8K SEC report. The report found also at the SCO site and states: 'the Company has eliminated the Chief Executive Officer and President positions and consequently terminated Darl McBride.'"
Could I possibly be the first... (Score:2, Insightful)
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
TERMINATION (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising additional funding (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Company is also looking to raise additional funding and sell non-core assets"
Translation: The company is looking at further litigation, and selling off all software development divisions.
Re:Big deal (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll start celebrating when these assholes are in jail and their assets have been seized. I doubt I'll be celebrating any time soon. If ever.
Re:Did the Gun Help? (Score:5, Insightful)
> "An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."
> So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?
I wonder more why anyone at Harvard law school would invite, and even listen to him?
Yes, it is of course just part of the wonders of modern society, where a sociopath can keep on messing up society via influential positions he gets via friends (i.e. fellow sociopaths). Isn't it great?
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, Bruce. Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. Why, if CEOs do not try every ruthless, amoral strategy they can think up, they aren't competing. Without competition, the fat lazy companies take over the business ecosystem. If companies did not try to take advantage of every customer, supplier, and worker, those customers, suppliers, and workers would take advantage of them, or worse yet, everyone would get a fair deal. And if everyone got a fair deal, the strong would not succeed and the weak would not fail, and that would weaken the gene pool.
See, by relentlessly screwing us over, people like Darrell are improving the species.
So when is SCO going to Die (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:See ya! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they've already sold the door.
He's received millions in compensation during this whole pump-and-dump scam. I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank.
Good bye loser! (Score:4, Insightful)
kill -9 `pgrep darl_mc_bride`
Re:Did the Gun Help? (Score:5, Insightful)
He tried to appropriate the hard work of the community, scam people and organisations out of protection^H^H^H^H license money and sully the name of FOSS in general. All the while raking in money hand over fist and obstructing the legal process at every turn.
I very much doubt he needs to fear for his own safety, but yes, he is actually a first degree asshole.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Bank Of America seems to have an opening for a CEO that likes to really mess up the company they run. Darl would be perfect!
Re:See ya! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you're point is that suicide is considered an unforgivable sin in Mormonism?
If so, and if they really believed it, I would expect them to be far more worried about their daughter's eternal fate, than what the community thought.
Re:He'll land on his feet (Score:3, Insightful)
You laugh, but asshattery of the Darl McBride variety has been rewarded more often than not.
How do people think that someone becomes CEO to begin with?
Re:Did the Gun Help? (Score:5, Insightful)
For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?
No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide. One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. If I had a child who committed suicide, I'd be disinclined to share that information.
Regarding suicide being a sin, it's a touchy subject though because many, if not most, people who commit suicide are mentally ill or are suffering from other mitigating circumstances. I can't speak for Mormon theology, but as a Catholic, we can pray for the repose of that person's soul. We cannot and do not judge the disposition of that person's soul. Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just. There's not much else you can do.
Re:That's a bit harsh (Score:2, Insightful)
If they showed that on Pay-Per-View they might actually be able to raise enough money to repay (I'd originally written "pay off") everyone they owe.
Re:Did the Gun Help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is of course just part of the wonders of modern society, where a sociopath can keep on messing up society via influential positions he gets via friends (i.e. fellow sociopaths). Isn't it great?
Sociopaths rule the world. [slashdot.org] It won't ever change. Get used to it.
What is the sad commentary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a pretty sad commentary.
What, that he thinks people are out to get him and that carrying a gun will make a difference if they are? That he thinks it's something to brag about?
The quoted text didn't indicate that he had any rational reason to take those actions.
I mean, really... I've had death threats from disagreeing with someone on Usenet about technical details of the process of creating new groups. This is the Internet, that kind of thing happens. You can't take it seriously.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Vicious, semi-legal, fraudulent, knock down drag out competition is the cornerstone of capitalism.
Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.
How did this not get a single flame mod?
Because everyone knows I'm right. Show me one business that has been around 'for the long haul' that does not have at least one black mark of this type on it's record, and I'll back down.
People are sick and tired of this kind of capitalism. They see it on Wall Street every day. They see it destroying America, and they hate it. So no, nobody feels like I'm flaming anything. Just telling the hard truth. Most Americans are moral people. Most CEOs aren't, and people are tired of Wall Street Fat Cats getting respect they don't deserve.
I'm not badmouthing capitalism in general here, just the utter lack of morals it encourages. Amoral behavior is not okay, and America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.
Re:Did the Gun Help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, that's not a grammar flame, that's a semantic flame. The sentence "I could care less" is grammatically correct - it's the content that's wrong. And for me, my biggest language pet peeve ever. I have to do mental gymnastics every time someone says it to make sure that the topic really isn't important to them, and that they didn't mean what the sentence means: that it matters an indeterminate amount.
And now, we return to your regular slashdot programming of flames, rants and internet fights.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
America will no longer accept it from our business leaders.
For how long?
Until the next season of TV starts up in about a month :{
Re:The Church and suicide (Score:3, Insightful)
One Christian community's behaviour does not necessarily indicate how others will act, especially given the incredibly wide variety of "flavours" of Christianity.
Re:Big deal (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, I trust in the mercy of God and that whatever He does is just. There's not much else you can do.
Sure there is. You can put away the religious nonsense and acknowledge the fact that death is the final act of life. You can recognize that there are no far-reaching moral implications of a person choosing to end their life. You can admit that while being a tragedy for those left behind, there is no judgmental sky wizard who will punish your soul for eternity.
It amazes me that we're now in the 21st century and so many people still cling to these ancient Middle-Eastern tribal mythologies in an attempt to understand the world around them.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
For how long?
How long does it take a generation to forget a major recession? Five years? Ten?
How long did it take to make it okay to say, 'greed is good,' in public? Back in the 50s and 60s, it was not okay to say that. CEOs and other corporate fat cats could not flaunt their amorality. They had to at least pay lip service to being good community members.
If I recall, greed started being 'good' in the eighties, at least according to Gordon Gekko. I don't think the majority of people think it is anymore. Maybe we can hold better values than greed in high esteem again, things like cooperation, fairness, reciprocity, service, and selflessness.
Maybe we shouldn't be playing the sociopath's game if we aren't sociopaths. They will always win that game.
Re:The Church and suicide (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad. But too often true. All one needs to do is read the book of Job (the one in the Bible, not Apple CEO), to see this.
As a congregational leader, it is tempting to sit in judgment when bad things happen to good people. It is also easy to marvel when good things happen to bad people.
However, I teach that these things are as much a test of character as anything. I'm not one who can judge another, because simply it is not my job description.
As tempting as it may seem, we should instead focus on what we can do with what we have, to build up and bless(Order, Peace, Joy) this world we live in; leaving it better than when we found it.
But hey, what do I know? I'm a wacko religious nutcase. ;)
Exactly right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Guys like this always pop up again somewhere. We have not seen the last of Darl McBride's assholery ... not by a long shot.
He has CEO on his resume and I'm sure there are some "benchmarks" that he hit as part of his contract; meaning, he was a good CEO by those people's definition. He'll get another job somewhere.
It must be nice being at the top.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite into the ground (Score:2, Insightful)
In IBM's terms, the money involved for them to litigate SCO isn't terribly substantial. However, the damage they did to IBM's reputation and some of IBM's investments wasn't trivial. SCO has even claimed to be able to terminate IBM's rights in AIX. IBM isn't after a quick end to the litigation. They are after vindication and making an example out of SCO to deter any other pipsqueaks from peeing in their Wheaties. Buying them out even at this late degraded date only rewards them.
Re:That's a bit harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
Strange. I always thought he was a giant fart.
Indeed (Score:1, Insightful)
Likely he will never be homeless.
Re:Not quite into the ground (Score:3, Insightful)
And most probably a policy of defending against legitimate IP suits as well, don't you think?
If the suit is legitimate the best strategy is to settle quickly for a reasonable royalty or an IP swap and small lump sum (for a little guy or a competing big guy respectively) rather than risk a large judgment and an injunction against shipping more product and supporting their user base.
I don't know that IBM follows this strategy. But I haven't seen any stories (or heard any rumors) in the last couple decades about IBM grinding a little guy down with big lawyers - or losing to one, either.
If the suit is legit and the potential damages are not chump change the little guys can get some big guns in court on a contingency basis. The law firm gets a sizable piece if they win it but the little guy gets even more. Or some up-and-coming lawyer gets maybe a third AND makes his rep as a giant-killer. No guarantee the court will render a correct judgement when the big guns are firing. But they try hard to get it right. The little guys certainly win enough that trying to crush them all is 'way risky.
Other companies HAVE such a public history. Recall Robert_Kearns [wikipedia.org], the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, had it usurped by the auto companies, sued, and won big time. Or Sears, which was accused of stealing the design for a nifty folding carpentry workbench from its inventor but defended and won.