OT: SCO Forum

[D . Thomas Podnar]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 07:01:33PM -0400, Fairlight wrote:
> This public service announcement was brought to you by D . Thomas Podnar:
> > Then you know for sure that SCO, even though smaller, has a hell of a
> > lot more employees NOT working on litigation than working on it. I know
> > a lot of SCO people in engineering, marketing, channel sales, etc.
> > 
> > I don't know anybody in the litigation department.
> 
> How do you know it's not outsourced?  Even if it's not, simply not knowing
> anyone in a department doesn't mean they don't exist.  I don't know anyone
> at any of the three-letter agencies in DC, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Well, it IS outsourced in that law firms are handling most of it, with
a small support staff at SCO.

This message was sent back in '03 to, I think comp.sco.misc by Bela Lubkin.
his integrity was defended by none other than Bill Campbell. So I don't
understand Bill repeating the "party line" stuff.

----
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Joe Dunning wrote: 
>On 6 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0400, Bela Lubkin <belal at sco.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>This is your opinion. I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, and 
>>I am still working on things that I find technically interesting and 
>>relevant to the market. It is a myth, a completely _false_ myth, that 
>>SCO is "nothing but" a whatever-you-say-it-is. The company has over 300 
>>employees, approximately 10 of which are involved in the "SCOSource" 
>>efforts. SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, but it's a tiny 
>>corner of the company. Your dismissal of the rest of us is offensive. 

----

Current company 10-Qs can find more current information.

SCO has stated repeatedly in public that the SCOsource staff is small.

Bill knew this, and defended Bela's statement at the time.

> > Working with SCO, as a private company and as a public company under
> > three regimes, has been a challenge for sure. Disliking them is Ok.
> > But at least apply a little intellectual honesty and serve up the real
> > reasons, not the drivel that gets propounded over and over.
> [snip]
> > Untruths, half-truths and mis-truths are wrong, no matter where
> > they come from. 
> 
> Then saying they're in the right is as much a half-truth as saying
> they're in the wrong.  There's no PROOF of either.  When asked for
> proof, repeatedly, they've failed to provide anything substantive to the
> communities in question that proves their claims.  This may be the way our
> legal system works, and it may have to wait to come out in court.  Until it
> does, anything else on -either- side of the aisle is speculation, and just
> as open to being a half-truth or just plain wrong.

No argument from me.

> So your comments are no more "right" than Bill's, -and- you're
> -potentially- being hypocritical about it, because there's no more
> hard proof backing your opinion than there is his, yet you're citing what
> should and should not be espoused.  No offense, but that's how it reads
> here.

Hmm. It is clear that my comments could be taken as opinion and not
knowledge. I screwed that up, and I apologize. SCOsource IS a small
part of SCO, and the former client lawsuits they've filed in the cases
I mentioned and are public record.

That these two "facts" have been spun into the stories that "SCO is only
interested in litigation" and "if you buy a SCO product they will sue you"
is an insult to the regular, hardworking people at SCO and a testament
to the power of repetition.


I've made no statements regarding the validity of the SCO/IBM suit.

I've no knowledge of value, so my thoughts on the merits would be worthless. 

My one real expressed OPINION applies to life in general, and so to
everything we've discussed here.

Untruths, half-truths and mis-truths are wrong, no matter where
they come from. 

> mark->

Tom