Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Caldera Operating Systems Software Unix

SCO Backing Off Linux Invoice Plan 283

Posted by simoniker from the step-slowly-away-from-the-paper dept.
rocketjam writes "CNet is reporting that the SCO Group is backing off plans to send invoices to corporate users in an effort to generate more takers of their Linux licensing plan. A spokesman said SCO executives were happy with current progress in the licensing program, and didn't feel they needed to send out invoices yet. SCO also extended the 'introductory' licensing price to the end of October, at which point the amount they are asking will double. Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Backing Off Linux Invoice Plan More

SCO Backing Off Linux Invoice Plan

Comments Filter:

  • "Backing off" deserved profits? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Empiric ( 675968 ) * on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:22AM (#7226901)
    I doubt this has anything to do with SCO's "satisfaction" with the level of response, but rather with the advice of their lawyers.

    Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.
    • Yeah, and gotta love the quote from the article:

      • "
      • SCO's plan has been carefully unveiled, piece by piece, Weiss added. "This is not to me ad hoc or random. It is carefully designed to ratchet up the pressure on users to knuckle under," he said. "

      "Ratcheting up the pressure on users to knuckle under?" They're backing off invoicing and that's ratcheting up the pressure? Nice to see the SCO cheerleading section in full swing. :)

    • Regardless of law, SCO is making dents in sales all around the world. Here in India, SCO had a deal with our country's biggest life insurance company. All these success stories [sco.com] have in part been made possible by all the publicity SCO had lately.
      Remember Rael's cloning stuff ? Same thing here folks. Hopefully, Rael lives far enough from us :)
    • In other news - The October 15th deadline to get the official Darl-tested, SCO-approved Linux license at the bargain basement price of just $699 has passed us by. Woe unto us all!

    • I agree with your comment about heeding the advice of lawyers, however let me troll about the c/p'd statement you make: Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law. Assuming all is true, and they do hold patents for the work, then by law they're entitle to compensation for it no matter how much someone bitches about it. Ethical? No, Legal? Yes.

      I barely answer SCO posts unless I'm posting some trollish joke about SCO suing someone for using main() in their code, but I


      • "...let's say they do own the patents or copyrights or whatever to something someone else is using, then by law they do deserve what's theirs."

        Well, no one has been able to find any patents possessed by SCO that would have any legal relationship to their claims or to Unix at all, so let's skip the patent question and go to copyrights.

        As far as copyright is concerned we have two issues:

        A) SCO hasn't filed any copyright claims in court (nor has it filed any patent claims, but that's already a moot point)

    • Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.
      Invoicing for someone else's work? Actually, that sounds like something a lawyer would do.

      -a
    • Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

      Well, they would be in for some real trouble - perhaps under criminal law - if they were to go ahead, invoice and get money out of people, then get crapped on in court and their claims over Linux to be thrown out. Hiding behind a plc would not then be enough to protect the instigators as all and sundry would be baying for their blood.

      In the highly unlikely event that SCO are proven to have been wronged against, you can be
      • he highly unlikely event that SCO are proven to have been wronged against, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be throwing around invoices and chasing compensation from everybody.

        So let's say a year ago I downloaded a SCO distributed copy of Linux that I'm still using. When I downloaded it, SCO was essentially telling me it was free -they sold it to me for $0.

        So now SCO is going to send me an invoice saying they were wrong, it costs more?

        I'm pretty sure that once you've sold something to someone (eve

  • IOW... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Red Warrior ( 637634 )
    SCO doesn't like the fact that IBM and Red Hat are both fighting back. They decided it would be bad to have more companies filling suit at the same time.

  • 16%... 1 in 7 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 )
    So one CIO in 7 has changed his plans to switch to Linux.

    That's not a paltry number, I'm sure.

    A more interesting article regarding kids and games today is here [slashdot.org].
    • 1 in 7 also give up their wallets to the wallet inspector. Sure it's peculiar that it's a different inspector every time, but you gotta be in compliance with wallet standards these days right? Better to be safe than have a wallet that's too heavy or full.
    • No, 1 in 7 have rethought their plans to switch to linux. Doesn't mean it changed they just thought about it again.

      Maybe half those people said "Well screw SCO I'm still installing linux" and maybe the other half said "Oh well let's wait for the lawsuit to blow over then we'll install linux." The statistic doesn't say they totally gave up on linux, they just thought about it again.

  • Do we really believe any of this? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They haven't sent out invoices because they're satisfied with the response on their Linux licensing program? Are you sure it isn't the fact that it would be illegal, and would get them into endless hot water? No, no, it's because they're getting loads and loads of money from 'concerned' companies.
  • There cannot be a company/organization stupid or spineless enough to actually buy a "sco binary" linux license . If so lets see the list... so we know where to place future shorts.
  • What did they think, that if you sent an invoice to someone's accounting department that they wouldn't notice and just pay the bill?!

    Hey... actually that idea isn't half bad.
    • This is actually fairly common for medium to large companies with regards to things like copier service calls, since anyone who has worked in an office with a copier knows that seems like someone is out to service it every other week. Therefore, people have figured out that if you send invoices for copier service, they tend to get paid.

    • At a manufacturing company where I had an internship (processing invoices, of all things), we got around 200 invoices a day. I doubt it would be all that hard for SCO to sneak one through. They might catch it after it was paid and they're trying to file it, but I doubt anyone would bother to see if they had actually bought anything from SCO before writing a check.

  • 16% damage from SCO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:27AM (#7226925)
    Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux."

    This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats. I expect that this represents significant financial damage to Linux businesses as will be represented in the sure-to-ensue lawsuits that will follow SCO on its way down the toilet.

    • This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats.

      My guess is that at least some of that 16% had already decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't want to implement Linux. SCO's threats can be used to help rationalize a decision made for other reasons, so they say (falsely) that it has affected their plans.

      The decision frequently comes first, and carefully tailored fact-finding afterwards.

  • Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.
    Or... SCO's abuse of the legal system, baseless threats and disinformation have affected 16 percent of Linux's customer base.

    If I reduced SCO's "income" by 16% they'd probably put a contract out on me.

    • If I reduced SCO's "income" by 16% they'd probably put a contract out on me.

      Ummmmm, not really, given thier business accumen (or lack thereof), and state of mind (insanity).

      They'd likely send the guy in the office down the hall an invoice for 160% of the profits, stating that "There's this guy who owes us money, so you do too!" Then they'd fax you a news relase of what they did with a threatening letter, release the news blurb to news.com.com with a few chioce comments by Sontag or McBride, and sell lots
    • Indeed. This gives pretty good ammunition to Red Hat's suit, which SCO is trying to get thrown out.

      It would also give SuSE, Mandrake, et. al a good reason to join Red Hat.
  • Apparently SCO's bluff is working about as well as the threats from Anonymous Cowards to beat people up over their internet connections.

    "Just you wait! I'll extend the introductory price another month, and I'll get you then!"

  • 16% (Score:2, Insightful)

    by michaelnz ( 701047 )
    Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies? I understand why a company that wasn't already using Linux would see this as a reason not to swap. But to be using or implementing Linux and to change your mind against it because of this seems like a rather signifigant change in attitude.
    • Don't give that figure too much creedence. Most likely those 16% are people who had only vaguely thought about it, and have now vaguely discounted it. I can't imagine that many organizations have done a true about face over this.

      But it does make it harder to go take a risk and stick out your neck to recommend Linux when other execs in your company are reading confusing stories in the media about how everybody using Linux is getting sued. Doesn't make it sound very appealing, I admit. Some serious PR e

    • Re:16% (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:59AM (#7227090)
      Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies?

      No, not frightfully disturbing but something of a concern. What it probably means, in most cases, is that they have temporarily shelved new Linux projects.

      Another concern is the effect on the 27% that currently have no Linux implementation plans. I suspect some of them may now make long term plans that will make Linux difficult to introduce later. Without this SCO circus, they would likely at least try to keep Linux options open.

    • There are probably 16% of CIOs that already didn't really want to implement Linux and now have a great excuse to give to their management not to do it.
    • Maybe 15% think that the current case demonstrates that GNU/Linux users have little to fear from such actions, and encouraged their technical staff to migrate to GNU/Linux?

  • Able to purchase licenses yet? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:30AM (#7226953) Homepage
    I'm curious, because the last time I checked, people still were unable to call up and purchase a license from SCO. In fact, I remember someone posting how the rep they spoke to on the phone sounded shocked that they were asking to purchase the license. So can people even purchase this license now? Or will they only be able to do so at the doubled price?

  • Target Price 45 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bloosqr ( 33593 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:30AM (#7226955) Homepage
    Wow! I remember thinking it was madness it had shot up to $10 on this ludicrous war and $15-$16 was the peak of the insanity. Rational markets indeed :! (From article)

    "In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent, to close at $20.50 Wednesday, after Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly initiated coverage of the company with a "buy" rating and a $45 price target for the stock"

    • Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly today were arrested by officers from the SEC. They will be spending 8-10 year in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for market manipulation.

    • Re:Target Price 45 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bigberk ( 547360 )

      Wow! I remember thinking it was madness it had shot up to $10 on this ludicrous war and $15-$16 was the peak of the insanity.... In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent

      This is what happens when you have an economy run off the whims of idiots. Let's face it, most people are of average intelligence and fewer still know fuck all about anything technical. These dumb investors are going to shreek like the neighbor's little girls when the stock plummets and they walk away poor.

      I don't speak


    • Don't you love these banking boys, the people who said that all those .coms like "boo" would take over the world and destroy old style commerce.

      A wonder what Brian and Matt were predicting as "hot stocks" in 1999. As someone who worked in a company that IPO'ed in 1999 and had a target price of over $50 and was worth sub $2 in 12 months.

    • I have no idea what is happening here but Deutsche Bank is a major IBM user, both of mainframes as well as AIX systems. One of their main trading systems (Global Equities) runs on AIX (but they probably don't know it because all they have in the trading room is Winders with an X server).

      Personally I reckon the analyst made a typo - look on the numeric keypad, 4 and 1 are adjacent. I reckon he meant $15. However the recommendation went out and they must stick by it.

    • Today's conspiracy theory: Remember when AOL bought Time-Warner with junk bonds?

      SCO are just trying to get their stock price high enough to buy a better company.

      • AllenChristopher said: Today's conspiracy theory: Remember when AOL bought Time-Warner with junk bonds?
        SCO are just trying to get their stock price high enough to buy a better company.

        1) It wasn't junk bonds -- it was AOL stock.

        2) It can't happen, because no legitimate company would take SCOX stock in return for their company. SCOX stock really isn't like money, it is unlikely that you could really sell a huge amount of it for the current market price. The shareholders and board of the potential target

    • Re:Target Price 45 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) *
      Here's [thestreet.com] a pretty good review of the Deutsche Bank analysis, along with a summary of the stock's position overall. They note that the $45 target is highly speculative, and basically hinges on whether IBM will settle or not. Given the stakes, I don't think that's likely. What is likely is that this issue will linger around for at least another 18 months, so get used to SCOX swinging wildly.

      As for myself, I couldn't help doing a little day trading yesterday. Got in at $19.40, jumped out at $20.90. I'll ta
      • From the article:

        > Skiba acknowledges that his call on SCO may be taken as heresy in the Linux community, but said
        > it's important to separate the stock from the company.

        Because, y'know, the actual company is completely irrelevant when you're evaluating the stock.

        Chris Mattern
        • In a surprising number of cases, that's absolutely true, although usually in the opposite case. There are a number of great companies out there which have horrible stocks (due to being overbought), but it is pretty rare to have a lousy company and a terrific stock...

    • "In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent, to close at $20.50 Wednesday, after Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly initiated coverage of the company with a "buy" rating and a $45 price target for the stock"

      Here's Mr. Skiba's analysis:

      "The IBM lawsuit and the potential for Linux licensing deals offer plenty to be excited about, while failure would render the shares worthless, in our view," Mr. Skiba wrote in a research note.

      Mr. Skiba said he isn't attempting to predict

    • According to this report [yahoo.com] on the matter:

      "Mr. Skiba doesn't own shares of SCO. Deutsche Bank may seek to provide investment banking services to the company."

      Well, look at that.. Deutsche Bank wants them as an investment banking customer, all while their 'analyst' gives their stock a 'target price' 3000% higher than it was at the start of the year.
  • We all know SCO does not want to reveal they secrets they say is their property. It's already been revealed! If SCO wants to send a bill to people or artificial entities (corporations) to use their intelectual property, then they should've obyed the Patent Laws by registering the IP in question at the patent office as theirs. Then, after the conclusion of their monopoly to profit on their IP, the IP patent is dissolved and the knowledge becomes Public Domain. Yet, according to the Bible, if IP was a sec

  • SCO's statement so far (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tilrman ( 234948 )

    So basically SCO has changed their position from:

    You have to give us money. No, we won't tell you why.

    to:

    You have to give us money. Because lots of other people have. No, we won't tell you who.
    • Geez, even the mob has a better promotional method than that. They'll at least tell you who their customers are, or perhaps aren't: "Give us money. Lots of other people have. Remember Joe, the guy down the street with two broken legs??"

  • In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Joel Carr ( 693662 )
    84 per cent of the topics that were associated with this artical were probably unnecessary. Or is it just me who thinks that having 7 icons running down the side of an artical is a tad too many?

    ---
  • I can't wait for this whole SCO thing to go away. Maybe it's a bit like that simpsons halloween episode where the billboard ads come to life. If you ignore them. They'll go away.
    SCO died because of Linux. They thought they were the only intel based Unix OS out there. They didn't innovate & they died.

  • No one even SCO, is retarded enough to send those invoices. The moment they send those invoices they step into federal law territory.

    Mail Fraud

    FTC

    SEC

    The list goes on and on ...

    I find it damn hard to believe that anyone is buying licenses.
  • This whole SCO mess is probably wearing me out as much as anybody. Still I can't help feeling very sorry for the bulk of the people employed by SCO.

    Think about it: Your firm is ridiculed by the entire industry, your management is insane, your future uncertain and your resume marked for life.

    Ouch.

  • Just be patient. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chrome ( 3506 ) <chrome.stupendous@net> on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:40AM (#7227002) Homepage Journal
    As soon as they send out any invoices, companies that get them can choose not to pay.

    An invoice is a demand for payment, but you're not required to pay if you can prove that you didn't receive goods or services from the company making the invoice.

    So, the first time someone challenges it, SCO will lean on them and say "Don't make us MAKE you pay us", that company will say "Go on then." and SCO has a choice.

    1) Go to court
    2) Back off

    If they choose 1, then the the court proceeding might look like this:

    Defendent: We haven't received any goods or services from SCO, and are therefore not going to pay this invoice.
    SCO: Yes you have! You're using Linux! It has our code in it! Pay up!
    Defendent: Prove it.
    SCO: No! We don't have to!
    Judge: Case dismissed. Stop wasting the court's time, SCO

    IANAL, as you can plainly see, hehe! But, I really fail to see how SCO would be able to enforce payment on any outstanding invoices even if they did send them.

    No, the safest choice is by far to ignore this whole mess and keep doing what you were doing before SCO lost it's collective mind.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:44AM (#7227023)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • In other news, SCO is reportedly "happy with negative press". Darl McBride was quoted "We're happy with the extent of negative press SCO has garnered so far, and don't intend to change our strategy soon." Analysts had previously speculated that the days of wild accusations against everybody and his pet gerbil were numbered, due to the increased risk of lawsuits against executives. "Negative press is always hard to get, but we do our best and are pretty successful" said McBride. "Watch out for our new projec

  • phew! (Score:2, Funny)

    by pergamon ( 4359 )
    boy, am i relieved! i was getting really worried there for a while.

    no... no wait... no, actually, my policy is still that they can kiss my ass. yeah, that's it. sometimes i forget my policy on that.

  • They did it for the effect (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What I mean was they said they'd invoice users for the press they got out of it. They most likely saw it as a way to pump up their stock price and deflect negative publicity.

    Point is, SCO is all bluff and no action. Does anyone really think they'd be stupid enough to really send those invoices and risk being bombarded with lawsuits? These guys want to be the ones filing the suits, not the ones being sued. They're trying as hard as they can to project the image that they're in control of the situation a
  • The article specifically says 84% of CIOs ignored SCO's licensing plans, not '16% of CIOs took the invoice threat seriously and had checks ready'. The reactions of the other 16% could include 'followed and got a good laugh', 'constantly bugged my IT staff and/or lawyers about what it means to us', or 'hedged our bets and put some projects on hold'.

    In other words, saying '84% of Slashdot readers ignored the last Country Music Awards' does NOT mean the other 16% followed it on pins and needles.
  • in an effort to generate more takers of their Linux licensing plan.

    Basically they don't want to look too aggressive in order to have a chance. They have read all the reviewers remarks and realized that they are too pushy so they want to be the nice guys helping everyone else follow the law.
  • 84 percent? [stephenvandyke.com]

    Mod me down, I have too much karma.
  • So basically we can say 499 out of 500 Fortune 500 companies don't feel any need to pay SCO for the use of Linux after all of SCO's PR work.

    People have guessed Microsoft as the Forture 500 company. There's an alternative option. SCO has a large customer that's no small fry.

    Some know that McDonald's uses SCO at their cash registers for POS. Perhaps SCO managed to sell them Linux licenses in exchange for other favorable treatments.
    • Wanna bet that this Fortune 500 company did not pay very much for it's "license".

      SCO are desperate for some "customers" to make the look good.
      I wouldn't be surprised if it whent something like this.

      Darl: Hey, you're a big company.
      We will license linux to your entire organisation for $1, deal?
      Company: Yeah, sure, whatever, Darl. As long as you don't use our name and quit pestering us.
      now if you excuse me, I have some business to do. You know, with actual customers, and actual products.

      Or it was

  • So: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday October 16, 2003 @01:29AM (#7227202) Homepage
    "Pay up, we'll be sending out invoices"

    Then a few months later:

    "We won't be sending out invoices"

    If they'd actually sent out any of the invoices, they could have been prosecuted for wire fraud. Which is, of course, why they didn't. The phantom "invoices" were just a trick to get people to think that there was something to this, and trick people into coming to SCO preemptively.

    However, given that: Is SCO violating any kind of fraud/barratry laws by claiming they were going to send out these invoices, then not doing it? (At least given that the claim was clearly a way of tricking people into "voluntarily" giving up money?) Any at all? Just checking..

    • If they'd actually sent out any of the invoices, they could have been prosecuted for wire fraud.

      Indeed. I'm a UK citizen, so I don't know which dept. of the US government is responsible for enforcing fraud cases like this, but would it be possible for someone to call SCOs "hotline" and say they are ready to pay for, say 16 processors worth of SCO Source licenses, and can SCO please send out the invoice for 16 units to "Blah Blah Fictitious Company, The Address Of The US Fraud Office, US".

      That way, their

      • That would be more likely to get YOU into trouble for fraud, bad faith contract negotiations or something like that.
  • In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent

    the point of this lawsuit is not to make $ off the licenses, it's to pump SCO stock so the execs can bail richer than they were before. it's working.

  • Save that FUD for later... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TitanBL ( 637189 ) <brandon.titan-internet@com> on Thursday October 16, 2003 @02:07AM (#7227302)
    "The executives have said we haven't had to do it yet," SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said of the invoice plan. They're happy with progress in the licensing program."

    Translation:

    Our stock is still soaring from our last round of FUD. The board is concerned we might have used too much of our FUD supply pumping our share price up and might not have enough left over to cover our asses when we start dumping our shares. Just good textbook FUD managment.

  • Come on guys.. It works for the comments on slashdot articles. The only way to deal with trolls, like SCO, is to ignore them. If you keep reporting on, and getting excited about every ridiculous move they make, you're just doing them a favor.


    • I disagree on this one. We've all seen the disarray the US IP (copyright/patent) system is in, and how little attention is actually paid to "common-sense" when handling IP issues.

      If nobody reacted, a company like SCO would possibly get away with being given a legal backbone for its bogus invoices.

      I'm not so concerned about their stock price (except a natural annoyance at seeing bastards earn money like this)--it doesn't really "hurt" me. I'd rather this be resolved through a hue and cry than there be s

  • SCO Stock soars [thestreet.com]

    Another one [yahoo.com]

    Fastest Growing Company !!! [yahoo.com]

    If this is the advice given to investors then it is no wonder that the markets are in such a mess. In fact these experts think that $45 dollars will be a fair target.

    "Skiba calculated his $45 price target by forecasting earnings and revenue based on licensing agreements for Unix and other licensing opportunities."

    Do we know whether or not the licenses granted to Microsoft etc were perpetual or annual, because otherwise I cant see where they thin

  • The situation in Europe (Score:3, Informative)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @05:15AM (#7227805)
    Sending out invoices in Europe could be fraught with problems. This is because of the way European sales tax works.

    If a corporation issues an invoice to another business in the same country, then it is legally obliged to collect the sales tax (TVA, VAT, MWST)and pay it to the government. The tax has to be paid on a due date which may be before the invoice is paid. The other company pays the invoice including sales tax, then claims the sales tax back (yes, I agree, it's hard to think of a more stupid system but it is intended to combat fraud.)

    If SCO tries the scam of sending out invoices, it will incur a huge liability for tax. The tax liability is a big inducement not to send out fraudulent invoices. Eventually the invoices will appear as bad debts, and that won't look good on the balance sheet either.

    This leaves SCO with the option of sending out cross-border invoices. However, these are far less likely to be paid since even the most nervous accountant is unlikely to want to pay a US invoice for the claimed use of IP in a German product.

    And my conclusion? Even more R&D and backoffice business goes to Europe, China and India. It's safer to do business there.

  • and what percent had linux plans (or even knew what it was) before this SCO business started making headlines in the trades?

    Our CTO didn't until she read about this and asked for a position paper.

    98% of CIO's can't find their own a-holes with both hands and a mirror.

  • 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.

    I'm still concerned that 16% of cios were gullible enough to fall for this, or at least be worried about it. That's probably enough to warrant a class-action suit by companies like mine against SCO after they lose big to IBM and RH.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Close