Talk:Santa Cruz Operation/Archives/2014

Moved

Moved to Talk:Tarantella, Inc. - David Gerard 11:52, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

split

I split the article so that it's more logical, even if it was legally different. The SCO article talks about old SCO up to 2001, and making a reference to their buying of Tarantella stuff 1993-2001. The Tarantella article talks about that, and the 2001-2005 period, before that was bought by Sun. --Joy [shallot] 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SCO vs. Novell, SCO vs. IBM ?

nothing about that ?

81.255.96.222 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong company -- that was The SCO Group. This article may need to make that distinction more obvious, perhaps with a hatnote.--NapoliRoma 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. was founded in 1979, not 1978, as evidenced by http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/fa-sco.htm . This reference also lists Larry and Doug Michels as brothers, not son and father. Also, 1979 is the date founded given in "The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Corporate Fact Sheet" dated October 1987, which came with some Xenix product brochures I'm in the process of discarding. In addition, this article shows the date of incorporation as being January, 1979 - while it may be legally possible for a business to begin before it is incorporated, it's not likely. By the way, this sheet also shows it as a private corporation in 1987 as having 500 employees, and with corporate headquarters in Santa Cruz, an international office in London, and a Federal office in Herndon, VA outside of Washington DC. Larry Michels is listed as President, Doug Michels, Vice President, Dennis DeCost, Vice President, Finance, and Jim Wilt, Vice President, Sales & Mktg. I don't know if any of this would be appropriate for the body of the article. R68000 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

SCO Employees Told They Must Wear Clothes

Today I undid an edit to the "Company Culture" section relating an anectodal story about an article in the San Jose Mercury (sic) reporting that SCO had sent its employees a memo telling them they must wear clothing. The edit also stated the building housing the SCO offices was formerly a mental asylum. Although incorrect and unreferenced the story is somewhat true. In negotiations with Compaq for a joint development project SCO agreed to let Compaq tour its R&D facilities. While the Compaq execs were visiting the SCO engineering offices on Mission Street in Santa Cruz (formerly the West Side Community Health Center which included a hottub and sauna) they encountered a couple of naked SCO engineers leaving the hottub area. The local entertainment newspaper "The Good Times" ran a news clip stating that local employer The Santa Cruz Operation had instituted a new rule whereby employees must wear clothes. The following week the Good Times had a letter to the editor from SCO VP of Engineering Bruce Chittendon stating that, yes, there had been such a memo sent around but it was only between the hours of 9 and 5 during which time most of the engineers didn't even work and that it was more of a guideline than a rule. So, those are the facts (i had a ringside seat) but they are as yet unverified.

If someone can find the Good Times issues the original news article is in and the rebuttal from SCO then perhaps this can be added to the culture section. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article has some great information, but from a readability perspective the article needs a complete rewrite. The sentences themselves are all okay, but they need to be reordered into a more meaningful form.  :) There is no logical flow of the article... there article constantly makes anachronistic shifts in timeline, and there is analysis and tangent thoughts dispersed throughout the text. This is a hard article to organize, given the old/new SCO and the slew of products from the both of them. Suggestions are welcome. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article structure needs a lot of work. I've changed the tag accordingly. Pcap ping 12:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

UNIX vs Unix

Recent edits have changed several occurences of "Unix" to the all-caps "UNIX". The seems incorrect. UNIX is a trademark, while Unix is the generic term for the type of operating system. Saying something like "SCO produced three flavors of UNIX" is like saying "Royal Crown makes three flavors of Coca Cola". No, Royal Crown makes flavors of cola. It is especially egregious when a quote from Eric Raymond is altered to include the trademark UNIX rather than the generic term Unix. The only place that UNIX should be used in the article is when referring to SCO UNIX which was a trademarked use. For further reading, see the Wikipedia article on Unix. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a first-pass edit at what I think the proper use of the UNIX and Unix should be. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)