Welcome!

Linux Authors: Elizabeth White, Liz McMillan, Jason Bloomberg, Roger Strukhoff, Pat Romanski

Related Topics: Linux

Linux: Article

"I Wasn't Brought In to Have Warm Fuzzies with Slashdot," Says McBride

"I Wasn't Brought In to Have Warm Fuzzies with Slashdot," Says McBride

Speaking to The Boston Globe's reporter Hiawatha Bray, Darl McBride has out-done himself.

Small wonder that the Globe's piece quotes software developer Ron Newman, who after hearing McBride speak at the Harvard Law School on Feb. 2. apparently said: "I believe his unpopularity far exceeds that of Bill Gates, who is No. 2."

Newman's view isn't one shared by the Globe's reporter, though. 

"In person, McBride is hardly the malevolent villain imagined by Linux boosters," writes reporter Bray, before adding: "As a child, he was the one who always sorted out sibling disputes. As a young adult, he served an LDS mission to Japan. Later, while working on a sociology degree at Brigham Young University, he volunteered to help a professor with his new personal computer."

In line with this faithful reproduction of The Story So Far from the McBride point of view, Bray then summarizes McBride's very  own version of things:

"McBride became SCO's chief in 2002, after a stint at the business training company Franklin Covey of Salt Lake City. He arrived at a company whose revenues were dwindling, partly due to competition from ever-more-capable versions of Linux. In addition, McBride was disturbed by a comment from IBM software vice president Steve Mills, who said IBM hoped to replace its SCO-derived AIX software with Linux. How could Linux, little more than a hobbyist's tool a few years earlier, compare with heavy-duty Unix code? McBride began to suspect that IBM was simply donating portions of its AIX code to the Linux community, to hasten the day when Linux and Unix were functional equals — the day when SCO's business would essentially cease to exist." [italics added]

Rather than commenting on the above version of events, LinuxWorld.com will let Mr McBride speak for himself: 

"I wasn't brought in to have warm fuzzies with Slashdot. I was brought in to increase [SCO's] shareholder value."

No further comment is necessary: Bill Gates must be the happiest man alive, to have been so lucky as to be blessed with a fellow CEO capable of acting as a lightning-conductor to the kind of wrath previously reserved exclusively for him.

More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

Comments (20) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Fecal Extrusion 02/19/04 08:31:02 AM EST

Darl, who the hell asked you to spew out your
nonsensical, psychotic, and pathetic white noise?

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!

Thomas Frayne 02/18/04 05:56:19 PM EST

McBride vs SCOG

McBride's statements often contradict SCOG's court filings. I don't see any conflict this time, so I'll just link to a comment on Groklaw by a user who offered his name and position at AutoZone, a company that, in a discovery response, SCOG accused of stealing SCOG's copyrighted code. The accusation was based on the contention that AutoZone could not have done it themselves.

The Groklaw commentor was a Senior Technical Advisor and project leader of the project to port AutoZone's port to Linux. He said: "I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. ... As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity. As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false."

The link is http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040215015800694#c78161

Ex SCO User 02/18/04 11:40:45 AM EST

Well, as Darl says, he is just out to increase shareholder value. In the good ol' days, Microsoft used to hold ... what was it? ... 40% of SCO shares. Do they still? Obviously Darl thinks so.

Randy Poznan 02/18/04 03:21:39 AM EST

yo fecal,
M$ has put the multi-million sco license they purchaesed to use. Via their new SFU package. Rumor has it that it is based on openbsd code which was free and not unix anyways go fiqure. I tried it out for kicks and it sucks, djgpp from the 90's was better. Another intersting not the company they hire to develop SFU was the same one that leaked their source on the net. Like that was'nt intentional give me a brake. How boring windows source code who wants that medusa?

Fecal Extrusion 02/17/04 01:51:06 PM EST

JeR,

Willy Gates may not be the CEO, but he DOES have the absolute
'final say' with respect to EVERYTHING Microsoft does.

(by the way... What the hell drunken monarch decided to
Knight him?)

Fecal Extrusion 02/17/04 01:48:10 PM EST

As per andy1307's quote from Business Week...
"...Microsoft has spent more than $12 million on SCO
licenses. Microsoft says it needs the licenses because
it sells technology that allows its customers to run
applications that were designed for Unix..."

I DARE Microsoft to show even 1 opened package of that UNIX
it so badly needed from SCO. ...That's assuming they even
received the 'physical' goods from SCO.
...I'm sure the software MS bought from SCO is sitting
in a landfill site somewhere...

JeR 02/17/04 01:24:38 PM EST

Great, uhmm, summary. Only, Bill Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft any more.

ashishK 02/17/04 10:56:59 AM EST

At Comdex on November 18, 1993, McBride stated that SCO would target Linux users in legal proceedings within 90 days--that gives McBride until TOMORROW to begin legal proceedings.

andy1307 02/17/04 06:31:15 AM EST

Since this piece mentions Microsoft, try looking at this Business Week piece:

The Most Hated Company In Tech THE MICROSOFT FACTOR

A quote from the article: "But who stands to gain the most from an SCO win? Microsoft. Linux is the primary force standing between Microsoft and domination of the computer world. The software giant is happily fanning customers' fears with an anti-Linux campaign while pumping money into SCO. Even though neither company has disclosed a dollar figure, sources close to SCO say Microsoft has spent more than $12 million on SCO licenses. Microsoft says it needs the licenses because it sells technology that allows its customers to run applications that were designed for Unix, the operating system Linux was modeled on. Critics believe it is just helping SCO finance its lawsuit."

LinusSpeaks 02/17/04 06:25:22 AM EST

here's Linus Torvalds at his best:

"... And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be wrong."

You gotta love that guy's way of making a point.

Yes!! 02/17/04 06:14:29 AM EST

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=litigious+bastards

Still working just fine

Bombdisposal 02/17/04 06:13:51 AM EST

Remember the attempt last month at starting a GoogleBombing where "litigious bastards" links to SCO? Is it still working?

Thornae 02/17/04 06:12:26 AM EST

Wasn't it McBride who is on record as saying: "I said my goal was to get a return on the initial Caldera IPO, when it was trading at $56 per share...."

I'm sure everyone would like their money back from the tech-bust, but there's this little thing called reality. Unless you're Darl, of course.

SorryBut6 02/17/04 06:10:53 AM EST

When all is said and done with this case I think Darl McBride will be making a fast exit... to South America.

Other people have said it and I agree with it... those attempted extortion, excuse me, licensing letters they sent out are should be pursued as federal mail fraud, and the SEC should take a long hard look at Mr. McBride and his lawyers, and how they're playing their own company's stock.

anon 02/17/04 06:09:51 AM EST

SCO can do absolutely anything they want. Lie, steal, commit slander and fraud. There are no repercussions.

The linux community, meanwhile, has to be absolutely perfect and saintlike and have not a single user do anything that could be interpreted as unethical, or they get blasted as scary anarchists.

This is even more funny when you consider SCO is a singular organization which can enforce ethical standards, whereas "the linux community" is an open ended, uncontrollable group of people that basically means everyone who downloads a certain program.

We need a media that knows how to do more than reprint press releases.

pyellman 02/17/04 06:03:06 AM EST

Just to put it out there -- shorting SCO is harder than you think. I've tried. I have access to 2 brokerages (USAA brokerage and Ameritrade), and neither could meet my repeated requests to short SCO. I also contacted Schwab to see if they could (to then open an account), and they also said no. The reality is, there's just not that much stock out there for the "average investor" to work with, long or short; the average volume over the last 10 days has been 177,000 on 13,850,000 shares outstanding. Do the math, that's a pretty small percentage.

For other reasons as well, I'm not a fan of the stock kiting scheme theory. I don't see how the numbers support that theory. Here is the summary stockholder information as of today: 45.83% % Held by Insiders, 30.44% Held by Institutions; within the institutional holdings, a large fraction are held by institutions who have aligned themselves with SCO through other financial arrangements. In addition, the trading records show that the rise in the stock price has been mainly due to trading between and among various insiders and institutional investors. I can't pose as an expert on schemes or grifting, but it is my understanding that any successful scam eventually needs a mark, and I just don't see who that mark is going to be in this case; that is, it seems to me that for a stock price inflation scheme to be successful, you eventually have to find buyers at the inflated price, and I haven't seen indications of the kind of demand for SCO stock that would be needed to support a big payday for insiders and institutions -- unless, of course, SCO were to win its case. Maybe there's another angle on the scheme, such as using the inflated stock price as collateral for loans or something, but if it is a stock kiting scheme there would seem to be some problems in the execution.

Peter Yellman

ekj 02/17/04 06:02:22 AM EST

SCO looks doomed. Even the financial people look like they're starting to get it, the stock is down over 40% from it's top valuation (allthough still sky-high over earlier levels), and the short-interest stays steadily at insane levels. (i.e. the number of people willing to be cold hard cash that SCO is, infact, bullshitting is staying steadily at record levels.)

Offcourse the nerd-population has been saying this for months. I hope there's a few kernel-contributors among the many many many people holding this stock short.

Bojan 02/17/04 06:01:44 AM EST

Darl is not a reasonable man. He claimed (and still does) that Linux contains millions of lines of code from System V. Discovery in the IBM case has shown zero lines of System V code provided by SCO. Instead they listed some AIX and Dynix files... He is far from reasonable.

Not to mention his blathering about GPL. One day it's valid (when it suits him), the other it isn't.

He was offered an opportunity to clear this whole thing up many times. He wouldn't take it. Now it's time for Mr Marriot and the rest of IBM to grind him, SCO and their lawyers into dust.

zedman 02/17/04 06:00:24 AM EST

Much as it goes against the grain, for SCO to charge a fee is not actually
a breach of license in itself.

On the other hand, SCO threatening end-users unless they pay up
would seem to go way beyond what the GPL allows.

Ian

neoprene 02/17/04 05:58:49 AM EST

SCOX should stop infringing on GPL, SCOX owns no Copyrights or Patents that could challenge Linux