Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by birdyrooster | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

birdyrooster·

Not sure where your confidence came from but a Google of “sco Microsoft” reveals:

By the mid-1980s Microsoft had gotten out of the Unix business, except for its ownership stake in SCO.[20]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft

View on HN

No, SCO was found in 2002, from Candera Software who was a Linux distributor [0]. How could Microsoft in 1980s own a company that wasn’t founded until 2002?

They later filed for bankruptcy in 2007.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

Close, but you have the wrong incarnation of SCO

SCO was founded in 1979 by Larry Michels and his son Doug Michels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Operation

Not sure where yours is coming from, if we look at [20] it makes no such claim.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061105100939/http://www.inform...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Operation

They were a partner with Microsoft maintaining a version of Xenix

That doesn't imply ownership and the article [20] that you pointed out doesn't make a specific claim. All good, but MSFT never fully owned or operated SCO at any level is the point I'm trying to make.

You aren't really saying anything at all. SCO would never have existed without Microsoft and Microsoft had a very significant stake in their business and gave it direction.

Owning stock, on its own, is not the same as buying a company

lmao

If you own a controlling percentage. Then yes it is. That is how you buy/control a publicly traded company.

You can buy 100% of shares and take it private, but that's overkill for what Microsoft wanted.

Hence why I said “on its own”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com