Talk:Microport Systems
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
>"it assisted the movement towards what later became known as Open Source" >
Would I be a complete arse if I suggested changing this to "...became known as the Free Software and Open Source movements"? It's a tricky one - in some senses they are the same thing (or aspects of the same larger thing), in others they are separate entities. Microport probably helped both to some extent (and perhaps the greater whole, as well) but insofar as RMS was involved, I think 'Free Software' was the primary beneficiary. "Open Source" benefited enormously from the work of RMS and the FSF; to that extent, they also benefited from Microport.
I have no objections to the change. I would note that the concept of "Open Source" hadn't been invented yet; indeed, the term "Free Software" (as the FSF defines it) was still fairly new. So, technically speaking, the contribution was to the Free Software movement, and then to the Open Source movement (as use of gcc was adopted by the BSD folks). I.e. "Free Software" was known at the time, Open Source wasn't.
I agree that it's a tricky issue; and the difference in wording impresses me as a small issue. I too am unable to come up with a better way to phrase it
Reverted the "it was a period plagued by corporate politics instead of venture funding" back to "it was a period plagued by severe financial mismanagement" which ultimately sank the company.
It was the lack of control on the finances which was the underlying problem. Corporate politics wasn't the fundamental issue. Many companies have political games going on; but if they don't have control over their books, they are usually dead before they know it.
For example, after Hickey was booted out, no one could ever figure out where Televideos' investment money went. That's one million dollars down the drain, with no accounting for it. I could elucidate much further on this theme, going back to the earliest of the company history. But it just re-emphasizes the old adage that if you don't have the accounting books under control, you don't have a viable company.
Microport's accounting was typical for a start-up, no better or no worse. With Televideo's investment came their oversite. Televideo was provided with monthly financials detailing all expenditures and continued to increase its investment knowing full well that the company was in the red. Further the accounting staff was upgraded as well and Chavis had more than adequate credentials for the job. As to where the money went, full page ads in PC-Week, Byte, the back cover of Unix-Today! and others, not to mention trade-shows in NY, LA, SF, and Los Vegas, and a staff that peaked near fifty might be an explanation.
One can argue that the company should have been financially conservative during this period, but the result probably would have been the same as better financed rivals like SCO and Interactive Systems (who were also loosing money) would have squeezed Microport out of the market even sooner. Okay, sure, if Microport would have cut sooner, right after the 386 product was launched that might have helped, but to be a player would still mean raising capital. One can also have wished for a better CEO and the job was shopped, but the capital structure with Televideo, and the market structure with all the other players scared the good ones off.
Finally, statements that Hickey (I) was booted out are factually incorrect, nor was such a thing even possible. There was a brief time when I was quiet on the BOD, giving Chavis and Televideo a chance to work things out, but it came down to me again to save the company. Indeed the whole Chapter-11 reorg resulting in the resurrection of the company was the result of staying on as the sole remaining member of the board of directors through that process - without compensation I might ad.
Sorry, I disagree. These changes are mostly self-serving propaganda designed to save face. The difference between our opinions is that certain affairs are documented, which you might recall. That's hardly typical for a start-up. You might also recall that the accounting staff was actually upgraded before Chavis came on-board. And he was actually the fourth person to handle the accounting. There wasn't much that Chavis could do though, since the company had pretty much cratered financially by the time he took over.
But hey, if you really want to go into the details in depth, and have them preserved for all posterity, I'd be happy to do into detail. Otherwise, if there are no comments here over the next month, I'm going to revert the changes.
And no, the statement that Hickey was booted out is quite factually correct. Your opinion, views and comments were completely ignored by that time .
And considering that you have a consistent habit of bending facts to suit your own personal agenda (which is something that many people who have known you all agree upon) I dispute your version of the Chapter 11 process. Especially considering that the entire process was up to an independent Judge, and not yourself. Please post a copy of all of the Chapter 11 proceedings. They should be accessible on-line.
Regarding the citation asked for regarding The FSF, I'm not sure what to put other than RMS himself, since it's pretty hard to document a phone call, and the shipping records would've long since disappeared.
As for the citation about breaking into Microport, it's really curious how everyone currently has this all wrong. Most written articles from a Google search have quotes about him being convicted of breaking into SCO. That's not true. As I recall, SCO wouldn't press charges, but Microport did.
It's best to go back to the original sources of the time period. Here's one that any cyberpunk who knows history will find very interesting: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3D71E3CF935A15751C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "CALIFORNIAN HELD IN COMPUTER CASE"
By JOHN MARKOFF Published: December 26, 1988
Yes, that the same John Markoff who later had that (how to put it?) questionable involvement with Mitnick later on, which has been well documented.
Here's a quote "In December 1987 he was convicted of stealing software from Microport Systems in Santa Cruz, and was sentenced to 36 months' probation." Notice that he wasn't convicted of breaking into S.C.O.. It's interesting that the SCO myth has become legend.
The ultimate reference here is the Scotts Valley Police Department, as it was they who worked with Microport.
What also isn't mentioned in any articles at all is why SCO was so motivated to pursue the person who was breaking into their system. This was not a minor effort, because of something else which isn't mentioned (but alluded to, in some early articles from that time). Specifically, Mitnick's arrest was the first involving tracing back a phone call over alternate networks.
One might recall that ATT had been broken up in the early 1980's, and one by-product was the creation of alternate phone networks. For example, MCI. Mitnick well knew that phone traces only happened automatically within a specific phone network (E.g. either PacBell, or MCI). They did not happen automatically (then) when the call went from one phone network to another.
In this case, from PacBell to MCI.
Doing such a trace required coordination between two large companies. And that had never happened before.
It was only because SCO was extremely determined to pursue this, that the Police managed to get the coordination to happen.
And what is never published elsewhere is that the reason SCO was so determined is because they were convinced that the source of the attacks was coming from Microport.
Again, the source here is the Scotts Valley P.D.
I'll add these to the citations over this next month. Pardon the delay, but I haven't done citations here before, and my time is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwight06 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Quibble: The article says "Microport also played a key role in Kevin Mitnick's first [my emphasis] arrest, after he broke into the internal computer networks of both Microport [...]" That was in 1987. From the webpage Dwight06 cites above his first arrest seems to have been in 1981 for stealing technical manuals from the Pacific telephone company. HughesJohn (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Revised article - need citations!
[edit]Hello - I have cleaned up and reorganized this article based on the material that was available on the page. Substantial hyperbole, a number of anecdotes, and clear opinions have been removed. I think it's a lot more encyclopedic now so I believe it warrants removal of the story tag. I do think the lack of citations is very problematic. I have tried searching around and cannot find any material to support pretty much any of the claims in the article. Not sure how to proceed in improving this article. Hope somebody can chime in. Thanks! StentGuy (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Completely misses the Intel contract to DRI to do the System V/286 sanctioned port.
[edit]Microport did not do the 286 sanctioned port. Chuck Hickey was the manager of a 10 person team at DRI, yes, but I was the lead. It is on my resume. From 1984 to 1985. Chuck got his source tape to start Microport from that effort.
Digital Research Inc., Monterey, CA - January 1984 to July 1985 Project Leader, UNIX Operating Systems Group - January 1984 to July 1985 Assisted in the organization and staffing of the UNIX System V/286 AT&T sanctioned port. Architected the port and wrote both internal and external architecture documents. Wrote all assembler code for the port, and wrote many device drivers. Taught basic UNIX internals to outside consultants, and gave consultation to many internal groups and projects. Led 10 senior engineers. Phrasewarden (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)