|
|
| LinuxInsider on Groklaw, Part 2 |
 |
|
Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST
|
As you know, LinuxInsider printed an attack on me by Blake Stowell last week. Because they had not contacted me before they printed it, and because they got a lot of letters, the free-lance journalist, David Halperin, asked if I'd care to do a followup interview. I agreed. The resulting article is now online. I do have some issues with the article as printed, which I have expressed to Halperin, but in all honesty, he seems a decent guy trying to understand the story and actually trying to be fair, even though the end result, in my opinion, misses the mark a little bit. I do appreciate the opportunity to answer, and I thank him for that.
They left out some of what I answered, which is to be expected, but I think the choices are interesting. The article begins by giving Stowell even more space to amplify his criticism, saying that they are including it for fairness' sake. Maybe that increases the fairness. Maybe not. Out of a 24-paragraph story, Stowell gets 6 to 8 paragraphs, depending on how you count, and that is about how much they cut from the answers I gave them. Since he had the original article all to himself, and I had no opportunity at all to speak, I wouldn't see that as altogether equal or fair. That is an editorial question, however, and that rests with them. It rests with us, however, to draw conclusions as we see fit. I want you to know, though, that it's partly my fault, because I didn't understand that they intended to use the example as a part of the story. He had sent me the Stowell quotation a couple of days prior to sending me the actual interview questions, and while their first question was referring to his criticism of Groklaw as publishing "misinformation", I didn't understand that they would publish his specific example. I probably would have answered differently had I realized that was the plan. Because of rushing to meet their deadline and as a result not actually having the Stowell comment in front of me when I finally had a minute to answer the questions they had sent, which is my fault, not theirs, I thought they were just asking in general about how I felt about being accused of printing "misinformation". I'm explaining all this because I'm trying to figure out this media business, and while I'm new to all this and learning on the job, I'm sharing what I learn with you, so we can learn together and help each other to interact more effectively with the mainstream media. I also think it's useful to politely let the media understand how we perceive their coverage and exactly why we think they are not being altogether impartial in their coverage, when they are not. My view is that we can be friendly and helpful to each other -- with some clear exceptions, some journalists with a hostile agenda I wouldn't interact with under any circumstances -- and respectfully try to understand the other's point of view, despite differences. Most journalists are just doing their job, under severe restraints as to space and time, and it's certainly true, as Halperin explained to me, that just because they quote someone like Stowell, it doesn't necessarily mean they support what he says.
One of the things they asked me about was whether I thought the community's alleged "religious zeal" causes it to overreact to criticism and if so, if it is counter-productive. You'll notice that they imply it in the introduction in describing hostile letters they got from the first article, but they don't include my response to the question. If they don't wish to be perceived as hostile to GNU/Linux, and I'm guessing by their name they would not wish to be so perceived, likely they will take those letters seriously, particularly if the letters are polite and written in a businesslike manner. At least they should, if they want readership longterm in the FOSS community. If that is not what they want, perhaps they should choose a different name, one that more accurately describes who they are. Here is what was left out:
***************************************
Question 2: At the close of the story, Mr. Stowell made serious insinuations about you, your motives and your backers. What is your response to them?
PJ: I would add this: By trying to get journalists to print where they think I live, they are putting me in danger. If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at what a SCO zealot posted on Yahoo's Finance message board, that if I was as pretty as Erin Brokovitch, he'd ... well, he seemed to have rape in mind.
Here is the message by a fervent long-time SCO booster, ledite, in message 102401.
Ask yourself, if you were me, how would you feel on reading that? My site also has been attacked and my email account has been abused.
SCO has crossed the line. They are bullies, and they have put me in danger. They make a big fuss about Darl "needing" bodyguards because it suits their PR, but there is no proof. At the same time, they have caused me potential harm and their supporter is threatening me. And will they repudiate that remark by their supporter, ledite? They should. They ought to find out from Yahoo who this individual is and make sure no harm comes to me. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.
Question 4: British security vendor and analyst mi2g recently issued a research report suggesting that while Linux was pretty secure if set up and administered properly, it was not, any more than any other OS, 100 percent secure, and that attacks on Linux servers online were not significant and increasing.
The response to that report from the open source community was, mi2g said, "as if a church had been desecrated."
They said, "there is a widespread reluctance to accept criticism in the Linux community even when it is genuinely in regard to the scarcity of skills available to administer Open Source OS servers or desktops", and, "the management of mi2g has been threatened with damage to reputation and online property unless more is preached in favour of Linux. mi2g would like to record that it carries no bias in favour of BSD or Apple Mac OS X, nor does it maintain any bias against Windows or Linux. Various allegations have been made in a variety of forums that mi2g is somehow biased in favour of proprietary software vendors. This is not true."
PJ: mi2g do not have a stellar reputation, not since the Y2k debacle. It's hard for some to take anything they say too seriously after that.
It's true that no operating system is totally safe unless you set it up properly. But it's also true that Linux is designed to be safer. For example, if you get a virus, even if it goes off (and you have to take several affirmative steps to make that happen), it's limited as to the damage it can do. You operate not as root, but in a partition for a user, so normally the user space might be affected but not the whole thing. Windows isn't designed that way. They designed it to all be interoperating, so if a virus hits you, it hits the works. To be safe, you pretty much have to turn off all the gismos that make it easy to use and turn off ports left open by default, etc. It's a design problem, which they know about and presumably will try to fix in Longhorn. Meanwhile, trying to portray GNU/Linux as if it had security issues as bad as or worse than Windows is a joke to anyone with any tech knowledge at all. It's just PR. I wrote an article about the difference in security on Groklaw , and Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram for November 15, 2003 linked to it and said: "Excellent analysis of the security of Windows vs. Linux."
The media doesn't understand why people react when lies or falsehoods are printed. It's because people don't like lies and falsehoods. The tech media is used to Microsoft users, who mostly don't know their nose from their big toe when it comes to computers. So they don't react to stories with inaccuracies. People who use GNU/Linux know computers well, so they spot nonsense a lot quicker, and yes, I suppose they get sick of reading nonsense, particularly nonsense they perceive to have been written for hire, so to speak, with MS money in the background tilting the stories against FOSS.
Question 4 cont.: I can understand such almost religious fervor when you consider that open source is to a great degree an idealistic movement, and that many people have invested a great deal of themselves in it personally. The emotion is to be expected. But if that pattern does indeed exist (please comment whether you think it does), do you think it is good for the open source movement? Is such ultra-defensiveness a useful weapon in a cut-throat world, or is it counter-productive?
PJ: To the extent it exists, I think it's counterproductive. I know it isn't likely Groklaw folks though. I've gotten lots of positive feedback from journalists about letters they have gotten from my readers, and I've asked everyone to always be polite. I personally think politeness is important.
************************************** The reference to Darl saying he needs bodyguards refers to a Bloomberg report. The LA Times had the Bloomberg report by Jonathan Berr that Darl is packing a gun [registration required] and also available here: "Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School." They cut the story. As sent by Berr, there was this added detail: "McBride said he sometimes carries a gun, declining to
specify the type, and travels with armed guards. The gun is licensed, he said. Security officials have told him that convicted felons are behind the death threats, McBride said. 'When those are the types of people who are making threats on your life, you tend to take it more seriously,' he said." This story worries me, because it seems to me that every time Darl starts with this type of gratuitous PR about threats, within a short time, SCO claims another "attack" on their servers or some such. Whether or not that is so, I have formed the impression that they are deliberately defaming the community as part of an overall strategy of trying to get the public to view users of GNU/Linux software as breakers of the law. You'll remember that Darl has spoken about death threats from a felon before: "Still, the attacks on SCO Group have at times gone beyond the bounds of the computer world. The company spokesman said that SCO executives' lives have been threatened. When SCO Group chief executive officer Darl McBride appeared at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas in November to deliver a keynote speech at CD Expo, the company brought a sharpshooter along for protection.
"'We were aware of specific threats from someone who had already served time behind bars,' the spokesman said. 'If they've been there [in prison] before and evidently aren't afraid to go back, we have to take them seriously.'" So, let me get this story straight, if that is possible. Back in November of 2003, the authorities knew that death threats were coming from one specific person, an individual who had been fingerprinted and imprisoned at one time, a felon. They knew who was allegedly doing this but now, four months later, they are still warning Darl about felons, now allegedly in the plural, and yet the authorities haven't made any arrests? Does that sound credible to you? Why didn't Berr follow up with this question? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know. But it certainly seems like a valid question. Maybe he will now. Another question: why is Darl bringing it up now, again, out of the blue? Why continue to talk about it? And why, if there is nothing new, do a "news" story like this? What is new here? Let me ask you another question: in all your time using GNU/Linux software, have you ever met anybody in the community with a criminal record? Heard about any felons? Me neither. As Richard Stallman has pointed out, any large community that is made up of millions of people may have a bad apple here or there. The number of users of GNU/Linux software is greater than the population of some countries in the UN. Linus doesn't screen who gets to use his kernel. That's how Darl got to use it. Neither does the FSF screen and choose who can use their software. Not yet, anyway. By the way, they are having their Second Annual FSF Associate Membership meeting on March 27, and this year, the meeting's speakers, I understand, will focus on SCO and related issues. Fyodor does restrict SCO from using nmap, based on violations he charges them with regarding the GPL. He says that SCO appears to have stopped distributing nmap, but he asks if anyone notices them doing so, to let him know. "If anyone catches them distributing it again, please drop me an email so that I can take the next steps. -Fyodor @ Insecure.Org" Stallman has used the analogy of New York City. There are murders in NYC every year, but the majority of New Yorkers are not murderers. People don't call on New Yorkers to repudiate murder, as if the fact that there are a minority of persons in NYC who murder means every New Yorker is a murderer or condones murder. SCO's "guilt by association" PR against the Linux community, asking the entire community to repudiate any attacks on SCO as if all users of this software are responsible for the actions of every other user of the software, is just that insulting and silly. Even if a user of GNU/Linux software were to commit a crime someday, it wouldn't reflect on the software or the greater community of people in all walks of life who use it. I don't personally know anyone who would *not* condemn such an attack, if it happened. Last I heard, MyDoom was written by professional Windows virus writers connected to spammer gangs in Russia, though. If SCO calls on the Linux community, whatever that is, to repudiate such threats, and they have, then SCO needs to do the same. They need to repudiate the threat against me publicly and make it clear that they do not approve of such criminal threats. And they need to stop attacking me personally with false accusations and stop giving out to journalists where they believe I live, because in doing so, they are putting me in danger, not only creating a climate of danger but helping any maniac on the Internet to find and harm me. Stowell gave Halperin the name of the city in which he thinks I live. The exact city. Halperin redacted it, because he thought it wasn't appropriate to publish it. He was right. It isn't. If anything were to happen to me as a result, Stowell would be at least in part responsible, I feel. Darl can afford bodyguards. At the moment, my guess is I may need them more than he does. Rape is a crime. One of SCO's fervent supporters has indicated that he would rape me, assuming I meet his beauty test. Applying Darl's logic, SCO's side are thus criminals who condone rape. No? Not fair? SCO isn't responsible for one morally-debased SCO fan's threat against my person? Then neither is the FOSS community responsible for the words of some lone felon, even if that tale is true, a fact not yet in evidence, even if he uses Debian or SuSE or Mandrake or Red Hat. Journalists have a responsibility not to let themselves be used to spread Big Lies. Sometimes if you just sit and think a matter through logically to the end, it helps to avoid it happening. By the way, Linus is quoted in the Berr report: "'The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest,' Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST |
| Please put news and urls here, so they are easy to find. Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Update and URLs Here in this Thread Pls. - Authored by: Kai on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST
- Update and URLs Here in this Thread Pls. - Authored by: euvitudo on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:59 PM EST
- Update and URLs Here in this Thread Pls. - Authored by: sinan on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:40 PM EST
- mbaehr posts URL for SCO's response to Novell - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST
- Funny ZDNet Article blasting SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST
- MI2G and their rubbish ... - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:54 AM EST
- PJ: Yahoo has deleted the threatening msg! - Authored by: zapyon on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST
- New and better LinuxInsider article on SCO ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:52 AM EST
- Hilarious Register Parody of SCO - Authored by: B4RSK on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST
- Not everyone thinks mi2g is the bee's knees... - Authored by: kbq on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:40 PM EST
- Media training - Authored by: aussiedave on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST |
| Here's where typos etc. go, so I can find them quickly. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HeLLL on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST |
About time that they ask for your side of things. I do give them credit for
coming back and asking you to add your piece BUT the fact that they even posted
such a bunch of nonsense in the first place leaves a lot to be desired in thier
journilist practices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST |
PJ:
There was no excuse whatsoever for not including you in FIRST article. It was
simply unprofessional.
If they wanted to be fair, they would have excluded Stowell in the second, so
that Stowell gets his say on one article, you get your say in the other. Or they
quote both of you in the same article.
The name of the publication is deliberating misleading. Do not trust them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST |
You'd think linking to the origional article would be enough for balance in the
article, but I guess they had to reprint a chunk of it anyways.
Reminds me of FOX's "fair and balanced" reporting (editorial).
PJ, you come off more intelligent than Blake, no matter who gets more coverage.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: badqat on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST |
Shouldn't BS's complaint, if he has one, be made to Newsforge? After all, they
originally posted the Perens quotes.
That's the "best" example of "misinformation" he could come
up with?
Sheesh...I think we can find many, many more (and worse) examples of
"misinformation" direct from the mouth of BS himself.
Of course, Groklaw is guilty of posting those as well, so perhaps, in a twisted
way, BS has a real beef![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BS spews BS - Authored by: grundy on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST
- BS spews BS - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST
- BS spews BS - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST |
How does Blake Stowell know what city PJ lives? What sort of questions, and to
who, did he have to ask to get this answer?
I recall something about the GROKLAW domain registration address being his
source. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they did a background check on PJ
(you know, the kind creditors use). If they did,... shame, shame, shame... they
are running scared of the truth!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: colnago on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:20 PM EST |
The responses were quite human and to the point anyway, even if the context was
not what you expected. Too bad about the edited content.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST |
| Not only did they give Stowell double coverage, but it seemed to me that every
question presumed guilt or unsavoryness on the part of all GNU/Linux
users.
With respect to the mi2g "study", it was a pathetic attempt to find
some way to get exploit numbers higher for Linux than for MS Windows. Consider
the fact that they excluded all easy methods of attack, all the most used
methods of attack, which just happen to be those used to break into MS
Windows. Now, if you were a burglar, would you be more likely to try breaking
into a bank vault, or the house with the doors and Windows left wide
open?
Mi2g should next do a study on burglaries, but only study those which
take place on Thursdays of months beginning with the letter J, when the moon is
full, using '55 Studebakers as getaway cars. Yeah, that would prove that there
is no white-collar crime, I'm sure. It would be a very worthwhile study. Just
like their exclude-MS-Windows study was.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST |
The bottom line of the whole thing is this:
- U.S. is a free country
- PJ is entitled to publish her research and/or opinions
- if someone thinks they can do better, they should start this minute
Good work PJ. Don't listen to people that are trying to pin immaturity of some
people that post here on you. They are just as immature as those posters.
All I hear from people that bash posters on Groklaw is "you're abusive,
you're not lawyers, you're this, you're that". Fine. May be true. Then get
over it and GIVE US SOME NEW FACTS ABOUT THE SCO's ACCUSATIONS. And then comes
the tricky part - they have none. Zero.
In the meantime, PJ usually has 10 more court documents posted on the site...
Keep on it PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST |
| PJ,
I'm not sure that attempting to respond via the original reporter is the
right way to do it. I use the word reporter, but if this is the correct David Halperin , then he is
a "writer", not a reporter and writes for hire.
Disclaimer: I may have
linked to the wrong person. I can't search Linuxinsider.com for more information
on him because the search requires the REFERRER header that I feel is an
invasion of privacy and my proxy/cache filters out. This fact (use of the
privacy-compromizing REFERRER header), plus the many other dubious articles on
that site makes me think that expecting a real right of reply from them is
unrealistic.
Perhaps the best way to do handle these situations is require
final approval of the article or, if not forcoming, just ignore the attacks.
If the author writes one article that clearly shows bias, why would you
expect him to write another that corrects the bias? He was biased to start
with, why would you think he has changed? ---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST |
My poor opinions of LinuxInsider and David Halperin are unchanged: the only
reason that David alperin asked for a follow-up interview is that LinuxInsider
did not like the way their head was being smashed into the wall. My impression
of LinuxInsider is that they consistently operate on bad faith and lack of
follow-through, and we don't need to be pleasant to those whose bad faith and
lack of follow-through is a matter of track record. However, having said that, I
will not go out of my way to shoot e-mail zingers at LinuxInsider and David
Halperin: these two are not worth my time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST |
> He checks into hotels under assumed names
Concierge: Could you explain Mr Smith why you want to pay with Mr McBride's
credit card?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:05 PM EST |
Darl is, of course, engaging in melodrama:
"Look!!! Look!!! I am under attack"
The attack he is under is of his veracity, not his person, but he is using it to
sway those who listen to melodrama and do not know the facts.
That is why it is so important for us to refute it with detail every time we
encounter it.
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST |
"'The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in
particular, is that he is so dishonest,' Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail."
Surely Darl should sue Linus for defamation? Or would that mean that he has to
prove that he isn't dishonest? And, I guess the SCOG's share price wouldn't go
up with this kind of action.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:12 PM EST |
If it's of any comfort, I read the Yahoo thread, and it was reported not only to
Yahoo, but also to law enforcement (quite possibly something actionable).
I do hope you reported it specifically as a threat; after all, that's what the
law is there for - our protection (although with the speed it moves it may not
always seem so ;)
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST |
As for lying under oath, the SCO Group's trade secret allegations for one should
easily qualify. And their assertion that the GPL is unconstitutional is a second
example. A day without a baloney sandwich from BS is a day without sunshine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tomas on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST |
I would offer as a matter of simple logic that the vast majority of criminals
who use computers use MS Windows computers, not Linux.
Does this make ALL MS Windows users criminals?
The lack of simple logic and rational thinking at SCO does not speak well for a
software company - or a lawsuit company.
---
Tom
en.gin.eer en-ji-nir n 1: a mechanism for converting caffeine into designs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:16 PM EST |
| PJ - I followed the link you had to the SCO supporter threatening you... and got
a "message does not exist" page. Now, assuming you didn't put in the wrong URL
(which I'd have a hard time believing you got that wrong), the only other
explanation is that the message was deleted.
Funny how embarrassing things
like that just suddenly vanish... :-/
---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST |
1) PJ, errm ... Free Software has some definite advantages over certain
proprietary stuff (windows), and FOSS users are generally tech-savvy. That is no
excuse, however, to call most Microsoft users names (or so I interpret your
remark). I know a few rather decent ones. Why lash out at people in such a
generic way?
2) In his own small way, BS is probably right that _some_ stuff posted on
groklaw is not absolutely accurate. This may well refer to some comments.
3) However, that has nothing to do with the true value of groklaw. The mere fact
that groklaw has collected all relevant documents and the extreme speed with
which new information is dissected and followed up on (whose accuracy you can
always check after the fact, much easier than the gathering process), is
absolutely impressive. I fail to find this distinction in LinuxInsider's
articles. I may not believe every single allegation about the MyDoom virus on
either side, but I sure as heck greatly enjoy the collecting and dissecting of
SCOX's highly relevant court documents :-)
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST |
Part 2 summed it up nicely: "The publishers feel that the story presented
both sides and that its critics failed to distinguish between presenting the
views of a party to a dispute, and endorsing them. Stowell's comments, it was
felt, could stand or fall on their own merits."
Most "news" reporters and editors are not looking to publish any kind
of truth- just "news." They're not interested in doing any research,
or in challenging the statements of people they interview. "Stowell's
comments, it was felt, could stand or fall on their own merits." My
question is, since SCO already has a public relations staff, what value does
simply printing Darl's or Blake's ravings have? How is that kind of
"reporting" any different than simply publishing press releases? They
think that because they collect some random quotes that supposedly cover the
different viewpoints, that's good enough.
Well, it's not. You know that, I know that, PJ knows that. Keep their toes to
the fire, gang, who knows, we may do some lasting good.
Carla Schroder[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST |
I think its just sad that this site is called "LinuxInsider" considering they
are really not reflecting the Linux community. While I have seen some linux
articles there, a simple google search one day came up with this.
Now
they are supposed to be reviewing the 9800XT and its on a linux site so you
would suspect they are talking about performance in linux. Not so however, as
they test Aquamark, Battlefield 1942, and other non-linux games. I thought they
might be running WineX or something till i got to this quote:
A
couple of times after driver installs, XP would not finish
booting..."
Besides not even using linux in the review, it was a
really shoddy attempt at one. I dont know where to begin to show how bad the
review is. Just check it out yourself.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux Insider - Authored by: raindog on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST
- Linux Insider - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:14 AM EST
- Linux Insider - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:30 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST |
CEO's at Worldcom, Enron and many other places are crooks.
Darl is a CEO.
Therefore Darl is a crook.
SCO logic. Must be true.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST |
PJ, We're all behind you in this and do care about your personal safety and
virtue.
As pleasing and delightful as is the style of your reporting, often
touched with mild sarcasm and a clever wit, the subject matter likewise hardly
serves discussion or analysis less than worthy of the main moment of the
historic legal cases or their epic context.
Indeed, in the earlier days I
can remember feeling mortally sick at the spinning false statements issued from
the SCO machine and likewise partners in professional FLOSS FUD fabrication
concoursed in formal deference everywhere, and then discovering groklaw where
the principles and reasons I valued were weighed and considered in the analysis
of the legal cases at hand, and where the wacko pronouncements of the
intellectual property luddites and their shameless cohorts in FUD have no merit
in fallacy against PJ's talent for research, reason and principle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lifewish on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:00 PM EST |
PJ: is it appropriate to critique your responses to Halperin's questions? I
don't want you to think I was unimpressed by your excellent answers, but I'm
suffering from a terrible urge to chip in with my own two cents. This is the
terrible effect of years spent helping to polish up marketing documents...
---
------------------
"Diplomacy: the art of saying 'Nice doggy' until you can find a stick" - Wynn
Catlin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST |
| It appears that you too have had to face a press that tends not to print the
entire story. The press tends to print what they think will get them either more
money or more press coverage of what they print. It is very hard to correct
something that gets into print, even if what they have is so wrong that a 2 year
old would know better. Even with the slant that has been put on this story,
at least this reporter did try to get your point of view. That is more than some
would do. Maybe a writeup from you to him might get another article on you that
would cast you in a better light. Might be worth a try. Remember, asking the
press not to print something is a sure-fire way of seeing it show up. As far
as the threats toward you go, call your local office of the FBI. Make them aware
of this so that they can track this down. It does seem odd that Darl seems to
know who is making threats against him ( if you believe there are any ) and
nothing is being done about it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: superluser on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:07 PM EST |
*Cue X-Files music*
Did you notice how many times they quoted PJ saying ``The truth is out there''?
Oh, and the ``storm of protest and abuse'' in response to the story that
``contained both expressions of support for, and criticism of, Groklaw.''
Funny, for a story ABOUT something, they never once even talk to the person who
runs it.
Let's try an analogy. What if MSNBCNNBCBSPAN ran a story about the 2004
campaign of Howard Dean, but only quoted Karl Rove in the story?
Would that be a fair article? Is an article entitled ``Writing Linux History:
Groklaw's Role in the SCO Controversy'' that only quotes from a source that is
obviously biased against Groklaw considered fair?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST |
PJ,
Yours has become the most coherent public voice in the FOSS camp on the SCO
issue, and as such you have now become a public figure. And you're going to get
more public as time goes on. When SCO is just a smear on the tarmac, there will
be other proprietary/FOSS battles, and with each one, press understanding of the
social and economic importance of the conflict will grow. With each battle they
will be more and more anxious to have articulate (and sane) people from the FOSS
camp to comment on events, and with each battle their credibility will be under
greater attack from the proprietary camp.
The 'Linux Insider' business has been a moderately gentle introduction, but if
you try to learn press relations as you go on, while concentrating on keeping
the site going, you're going to get eaten alive. Just as there are lots of
lawyers and *nix professionals willing and anxious to contribute, so, I'm sure,
there are seasoned PR professionals out there who would be willing and able to
donate their services to help you to field press enquiries and to frame
rebuttals as required.
You seem to be particularly good at finding the required expertise: I think you
need to get this kind of expertise on board ASAP.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:31 PM EST |
One of the dangers in overly responding to smears is that the topic gets
changed. Once we address the smears, we should immediately return to the
business at hand, which seems to be the law and F/OSS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:32 PM EST |
"Still, the attacks on SCO Group have at times gone beyond the
bounds of
the computer world. The company spokesman said that SCO executives' lives
have
been threatened. When SCO Group chief executive officer Darl McBride
appeared
at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas in November
to deliver a
keynote speech at CD Expo, the company brought a sharpshooter
along for
protection.
A corporation hired a sniper? If Darl was attacked this
sniper would open fire
at whoever/whatever they thought was the source of
attack?
If this is in fact true, I cannot see how it would be legal. If
there was a credible
felon making a specific threat, it's up to the appropriate
Law Enforcement
Agency to address - not some corporate executive and his
"sharpshooter". It
amazes me that the article this quote comes from doesn't
question this
aspect. This sounds to me more like some child with low
self-esteem making
over-the-top boasts in a desperate to attempt to impress
onlookers. I would
think commercial media would be a bit more grown up about
reporting on
these types of claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
Has anybody thought to ask Linus if he has permitted the use of the name
"LinuxInsider"?
"Linux" is a trademark owned exclusively by one "Linus
Torvalds". Those who use it must get specific permission to do so from the
owner. IMHO "LinuxInsider" is a clear use of the trademark. The
issue would be completely different if the trademark were
"Progressive". Worse, the owner must enforce the trademark or it may
go into common use (think Aspirin).
No offense to Linus, but he is a big geek pretty much hyperfocused on the
kernel. He may have never heard of "LinuxInsider".
If he has granted permission, of course, then they have complete permission to
be idiots, among other things.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: irieiam on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
"... have you ever met anybody in the community with a criminal record?
Heard about any felons?
Me neither. ..."
That's kinda shallow, don't ya think?
61 months, thank you very much - It takes strength and conviction (heh) to pull
through that...Kinda like this battle. Make no mistake.
Know what I read about inside? Linux. Now I'm an admin with enough experience
(12 years) to see that this is not the place for me. It really does get
off-base here.
Too self-righteous for me. A convicted felon is saying you are shallow. What
does that say about you?
I'm utterly disgusted and disappointed in that statement, PJ.
Thanks for the shallow insult.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST |
PJ,
When attacks get personal, it's easy to loose the forest through the trees.
The fact is, you are doing a great job presenting information and research on
a topic you obviously care about deeply. There are certainly others that look
bad (and loose money) based on the results of your research.
Nobody likes to look bad -- and so they attack back. They may even think
they are in the right. I bet that Darl really does believe that you're a front
for
IBM -- never before has he seen such a coordinated effort to get at the truth,
and not understanding the open source movement, he thinks there *must* be
a corporation behind this work. This just shows what a great job you're
doing.
I think, though, that you weren't quite ready for the personal backlash that
you've experienced. If you want to keep doing what you are doing (and I
hope that you will!), you need to expect some of this.
I encourage you to simply ignore these personal attacks. If you let them get
to you, the attacks will just continue. I believe that your reaction to the
outing of your address, however justified, will hurt you in the long run. It
shows your weak spot to those who would like to stop your work. And it
causes you to divert time and energy away from the core of your work, and
toward defending yourself.
Here's my advice: Personal threats will occasionally happen. You should
work with law enforcement if you feel threatened. The FBI has tremendous
ability to track down someone that is threatening you in a persistent way.
Even a call to the ISP will get the post taken down. On your own site, though,
don't mention the threat. Deal with it in the background through the
appropriate law enforcement and legal channels. In fact, sharing any details
of that with the rest of us may make legal action more difficult later.
Why do I say that you shouldn't mention the threat? A few reasons: First,
people that make these threats and *mean* them will enjoy reading your
response. You certainly don't want that. Second, for those that have never
felt at risk, or who are new to groklaw, you may harm your creditability by
posting that you feel threatened. I certainly am not saying that you
*shouldn't* feel threatened, or that you're being silly, but I *am* saying that
an outsider might think you're overreacting -- especially since they can't see
the post that you're responding to after it's removed. And finally, you're
giving an advantage to the opponent -- again, he now knows a way to get
under your skin.
Regarding poor reporting that picks up SCO's stories, again, the only thing to
do is to respond with the facts. I encourage you and your readers to *stick to
the facts*. Don't present any theories on why SCO would have shared your
address (even though they seem quite correct). Don't talk about how
hypocritical SCO is being. Just *present the facts*. They will speak for
themselves.
I think I speak for many in the community here when I wish you luck in
continued work with groklaw, and we all hope that you can run groklaw
without it taking over your life -- without feeling like you're in danger for
writing. Please keep up the good work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:11 PM EST |
Here are some Enderle quotes
"I sit on a lot of PC company advisory boards..."
"Motorola, BSD and IBM are no match for Intel and Microsoft."
"So, as far as I can tell, Microsoft is the only large firm really dealing
with behavioral issues."
"What Microsoft is showcasing is its realization -- which happens to concur
with my own -- that fixing the platform itself isn't enough. You must address
the other parts of the exposure, particularly the human part."
"As it turns out, this leak might be a cloud with a silver lining for
Microsoft."
"MyDoom worm is not just a personal attack against SCO and Microsoft, but
it is also an attack on the millions of users of Microsoft products,
particularly users who don't have sophisticated security measures in place,
like children, small-business owners and the elderly."
"IBM, which has the greatest investment; HP, which is getting the most
revenue (so which CEO do you think is smarter?); and Novell, which is structured
like the Linux Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)"
"...Microsoft's embedded platform (on Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) and HP hardware)
would be used for a nationwide Radio Shack rollout. So much for embedded
Linux."
"Governments -- from local to national -- have begun to use open source as
a way to remove Microsoft's power. However, they are increasingly putting
themselves into the power vacuum they are creating."
"SBC: Stop blaming everything on Microsoft."
"This is called customer lock-in. IBM made customer lock-in a cornerstone
of its dominance until Microsoft showed that you could own a market through
licensing."
"Sun: Get over Microsoft."
"Microsoft: Lose the Home Edition of Windows."
"I spent the middle part of last week at Microsoft headquarters."
"McBride appears to be targeting the general populace and doing what I
think is a reasonable job of branding open source as a group of thugs out to
attack capitalism and the American way."
"MSN has once again become strategic to Microsoft."
"...Microsoft incredibly difficult to compete against."
"my friend Laura DiDio"
"... Oracle and Apache agreed that the future would be solidly open source.
Microsoft, of course, did not concur, ..."
"Innovation Loses If Open Source Wins ... Microsoft -- despite beliefs to
the contrary -- is generating a disproportionate share of these efforts today,
largely because of the budget cuts other firms have made."
Now why would LinuxInsider constantly invite this commentator that has such a
skewed view of Linux and OSS, - though he always touts Microsoft innovation?
from under the bridge
I realize I'm only the hired help here but I don't do Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gnostalgia on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:58 PM EST |
Hey PJ --
First, let me thank you -- slobberingly -- for all your work and efforts on the
site.
To the point: Making statements like "have you ever known a felon..."
with regards to the FOSS community, and Linux, is always going to be falsifiable
with only one contra-example.
You do make the much stronger point, later on, by drawing out your analogy to
New York City, but I fear that the larger point there may be lost in the sound
bite line.
Cheers, and keep up the great work!
---
"Only connect." -- E.M. Forster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:12 AM EST |
I've seen the term Groklawyer self-applied by one or two
fans of Groklaw. May I suggest "lawgrokker" as an alternative? It
connotes more accurately that we are seeking to understand ("grok"),
rather than practice, the law. Alternative capitalizations might be: LawGrokker,
Lawgrokker, lawGrokker.
Anyway, trying to stay true to the IANAL idea (of course there may be
lawgrokkers who are lawyers as well.)
"Grok" is so fun to say. Grok grok grok grok grok. *sigh*.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:45 AM EST |
I note there is a post under the article complaining that
Trolls get deleted from Groklaw. I also note that posts to
Linuxinsider are first reviewed by an editor.
Perhaps that is why the number of posts under the article
is so small. Then again it could be lack of readership.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yep. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:32 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:21 AM EST |
PJ, I once heard someone say that if you're extensively interviewed by a
hostile reporter and absolutely nothing you say is quoted, you've given a
good interview because they couldn't find anything that could be quoted
out of context.
That said, don't forget what I posted earlier, that Sharon Machlis of
Computerworld told me they were open for OpEd articles from the Linux
side. She can be reached at:
Sharon_Machlis@computerworld.com
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:32 AM EST |
Rule #1.
It attracts readers, hence advertisers. In a situation
like this where there are outrageous statements and
obvious strong feelings, they will publish the most
sensational comments.
The most effective messengers are those that make the same
point all the time. SCO has been reasonably effective in
saying 'we own unix, they stole it'.
Every time a question is asked, make sure that this is
challenged. Did you know that may not own unix? It has
taken a judges order for them to even hint at what they
say was stolen. They are claiming as theirs what has been
clearly written by someone else.
When asked about SCO's comment on Groklaw, say that SCO is
trying a shakedown of people who use Linux. They don't
like anyone reporting the truth. Ask the reporter why a
company who feels they have such a strong case would
complain about a volunteer web site? Say that SCO would
love Groklaw to disappear because they could proceed
unmolested in their scam. Ask the journalist if he knows
that SCO copyrighted the last conference call to prevent
Groklaw from publishing it?
Ask the journalist if they knew that the latest lawsuits
were tantamount to a ford user being sued for switching to
GM products.
There are too many inconvenient facts that SCO would like
to hide. When they are listed succinctly, it paints an
awful picture. Journalists need to hear them. It is not
necessary to answer to the specific accusations.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:03 AM EST |
I wonder why Darl suspects that this felon who is supposed to be after him is a
Linux supporter and not one of the rustlers he boasts of helping round up and
deliver to justice.
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of any other idiot...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:10 AM EST |
| PJ,
I'm as disgusted as everyone else here with what this person has
threatened you with, and i sincerely hope they catch this guy.
In the
meantime we can all help by making donations. If you need a bodygaurd get one.
We will pay.
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DarlingMcBribe on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:11 AM EST |
Hi All,
I'm a long time lurker with some anonymous posting, but
today I finally registered...
First of all, I'd like to congratulate to LinuxInsider and
everybody else in the media (Didio, Enderle etc) who
worked so hard to present SCO's views and discredit
GrokLaw. They have done a terrific job, and succeeded to
distract GrokLaw from digging up the (hurting) facts and
shift the focus of GrokLaw onto personal attacks and
mud-slinging.
And you say FUD tactics do not work against FOSS,
hahaha...
As you can see, now PJ spends her time defending her image
rather than damaging SCO with the truth. ;-)
IANAL, IANAG, IARASC (I am running a software company)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:30 AM EST |
AutoZone is accused of using shared libraries, but the guy
who
switched the company over to Linux posted on Groklaw a month ago that
they
didn't use any shared libraries, so I expect that means curtains
for that
lawsuit.
But the complaint filed against Autozone doesn't
mention any such
thing; it was in SCO's filings against IBM that SCO claimed
AutoZone
improperly used OpenServer shared libraries.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:45 AM EST |
I spend some time on the Yahoo boards and saw Ledite's message when it came out.
I reported it to Yahoo Abuse.
Ledite seems to be a paid-for shill, he turns up at start of trading putting an
impossibly pro-SCOX spin on any recent news, yesterday it was that CA had
legitimized SCOX's ownership of Linux by 'buying' the licenses, something we
know is not true. The concept seems to be to boost the stock in the morning so
its current decline is coming out of this false starting point.
While what he said was completely out of order, but I think it was more boasting
and machismo than threat. That tells you a lot about his personality but I
doubt he is really a stalker. Still as I say I and others reported the post to
Yahoo, and there's no doubt it is very unpleasant and disturbing to be singled
out like that.
Ledite and the other pro-SCOX trolls are a very interesting phenomenon that I
hope one day will get some light shone on them. I suspect there is only two or
three and they post the same crap under different names only at very specific
times of the trading day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:17 AM EST |
Imagine, if you will, a medieval setting in which a dying fiefdom, its diseased
crops expiring from neglect and incompetence, decides to make a desperate grab
of all the healthier farmland surrounding their borders.
Accusing the surrounding baronies of encroaching on his lands and stealing his
crops, the Wicked Baron of this desperate fiefdom petitions the King for
"justice" and begins making outrageous and deceitful proclamations
defaming the other barons, farmers and common folk in an effort to persuade the
King to rule against them and transfer their holdings to the Wicked Baron.
Currying favor with the press due to his status and position in the royal
hierarchy (and perhaps a few purses of gold here and there), the words of the
common citizen are drowned out when rumors surface that a neighboring enemy
kingdom is secretly supporting the Wicked Baron.
When the townsfolk gather to bring their concerns about the Wicked Baron's lies
and treachery to the King, the Wicked Baron whispers into the King's ear,
"They're rioting at your doorstep! They mean to assassinate us all! Call
out the guard and quash them while you can!", his hollow accusations and
wolf-crying being printed word-for-word by the press.
As with any oppressed minority, the Wicked Baron's dissenters fight back by
going underground and printing their own gazette, Ye Olde Groklaw. As the truth
spreads, various knights bound by honor and duty (as well as their own
interests) join the fight.
The conflict will soon come to a head and there can be only one of two possible
outcomes:
1. The Wicked Baron prevails, sending the nation into the Dark Ages.
2. The Wicked Baron is stripped of his title and holdings and hanged for his
crimes.
When the hammer of justice comes down, I expect the last words the Wicked Baron
will hear are "Get a rope."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mscibing on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST |
For example, if you get a virus, even if it goes off (and you have
to take several affirmative steps to make that happen), it's limited as to the
damage it can do. You operate not as root, but in a partition for a user, so
normally the user space might be affected but not the whole
thing.
That the machine boots will be cold comfort if a virus
wipes your $HOME directory; that's were your data likely lives. But
depending on configuration and the details of an attack, permissions can protect
your $HOME as well. What they will not do is prevent worms from propagating;
at best they will close off some of the secondary channels.
But, as you
reveal, permissions are not the whole story. Microsoft had not made security the
priority it has been elsewhere, and they will be paying for that mistake for a
long time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST |
PJ, I would just ignore comments like these from SCO and all
of it's PR cronies. When these guys have to take time from
their FUD campaign to make attacks on Groklaw, then you
know that the facts you are printing are getting in the way of
their FUD. Just ignore them and keep posting the legal and
factual documentary as truthfully and objectively as possible -
that is what is hurting them. There are plenty of others in the
Linux community to make rebuttals, but only one PJ.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roxyb on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST |
| PJ, why do you bother?
Linuxinsider is a well-known and disreputed
FUD-site,
since its inception. Not only for SCO, but for MS. A more
correct name for them would have been "Anti-Linux
Insider". An interesting
research assignment would be to
trace their funding, ad-revenues and their
management, as
I believe that may reveal a lot of interesting
information.
Anyway, they are a perfect example on why you
shouldn't
make assumptions
based on an Internet name. Lending them
credibility by allowing them to
interview you is just
counter-productive (some journalists are best ignored,
even if they are nice people, as they still will only
write trash). I'll
stop
ranting now...
Roland Buresund ---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gressil on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST |
There's a good dissection of the quality of "research" done by mi2g at http://vmyths.com/resourc
e.cfm?id=64&page=1
Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 06:25 AM EST |
Stowell's manipulation this time follow the strawman logical
fallacy pattern.
He points to the weakest (and most trivial)
arguments that have appeared on this site that may be questionable -- as
evidence that this site should be discredited -- but thus avoids the very
powerful on-target on topic factual attacks that this site makes.
I try
to learn from the deceptive tactics of avoiding scrutiny. We see it from our
favorite politicians and pr reps all the time. We should learn to identify
these types of logical fallacies.
nw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST |
>"Let me ask you another question: in all your time using
>GNU/Linux software, have you ever met anybody in the
>community with a criminal record? Heard about any felons?"
I would find it quite difficult to recompile a new kernel in prison. Cable modem
may not be available as of yet and from what I understand, a desk with all of
the tech toys may not be allowed.
Felons that are out of prison may be advocates of Open Source nevertheless. But
just as this whole concept of "Felon Linux Users (The FLU :) ), I find it
hard to believe that this would be of any concern to SCO. In fact, I would
suppose when SCO's higher ups return to society from the prisons in which they
are headed, they just may use Linux to prove their points. This is the SCO
logical way of proving and providing evidence of the misdeeds done against
them.
No. I cannot say I've ever met a felon who used Linux. But I can say I have met
a felon who used toilet paper. I wonder what evils they may have in store for
butt paper companies.
Interesting propaganda.....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: be2weenthelines on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST |
This article appeared on CBS Marketwatch late yesterday. Here is the Letter to
the Editor I sent in reply:
As an independent investor, I rely on factual and accurate news for my decision
making. I just had the unpleasant experience of reading the poorly researched
and misleading article "CA signed Linux license from SCO Group" by
Reed Stevenson. A little research (try www.groklaw.net) would have shown your
reporter that CA did not really "agree[d] to license the software last
August" so much as inadvertently acquire a license as the result of the
settlement of a lawsuit to which the SCO Group was not even a party. In fact,
as the article correctly points out, "(SCO) is grasping at straws to
purport CA as a SCO supporter..."
In this context the paragraph that proclaims "'Generally, if an IP holder
is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby
respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is
persuasive to a jury," said Brian Ferguson, a partner in a Washington, D.C.
law firm that handles IP cases. Ferguson has no stake in the SCO case."
strikes me as deliberately misleading, and the one sentence disclaimer at the
end a pretense of impartiality designed to further mislead.
I'm dismayed by the low quality of this article and I trust Reed Stevenson will
be asked to do further research and provide more accurate information in the
future. I'm confident this was just an exception to the generally high quality
of the information on your site. If that turns out not to be the case, I will
have to seriously reconsider your site as a source of investment information.
Yours truly,
be2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ph(i)Nk 0 on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:12 AM EST |
Being fair to SCO and Stowell is like being agnostic towards alien
abductions. These guys make incredible claims, do not back them with any
hint of proof, and reporting their propaganda without questions should be
taken as "presenting the views of a party to a dispute", not
"endorsing them".
What a joke.
With all respect PJ you should ignore these pseudo-reporter trolls just as you
ask us to do so here on Groklaw. Trying to fight at this level is just a waste
of
time and energy, and frankly I found the rebuttal on Apple Insider weak. Let
Groklaw speak for itself.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcorg on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:36 AM EST |
PJ,
The reason you are being attacked is not because Pamela Jones' opinions
constitute a threat to SCO. The threat to SCO is the fact that Groklaw is the
foremost, and most relaible, repository of information relevant to this landmark
issue.
The LinuxInsider article entirely fails to consider the pure information value
of Groklaw, and in doing so entirely misses the reason that you have earned the
admiration and loyalty of so many: your tireless, dedication to due diligence
and comprehensive, in-depth legal research. That is the engine that drives
Groklaw.
The fact that all of us also have the opportunity to discuss the facts, and
interactively explore our views and opinions is IMO secondary to the value of
the legal and background documentation.
I know from personal experience how difficult in can be to find oneself in the
crosshairs of an organization intent on neutralization of a perceived threat
posed by an individual. You are certainly justified in being outraged by these
"we know where you live" tactics. And if you feel you are in danger,
you are undoubtedly resourceful enough to have already taked appropriate
protective action.
But at the end of the day -- and this was my experience (although my adversary
was a much smaller entity even than SCO) -- the facts of the matter will
prevail. The relevant matters will be adjudicated in Courts, not in the press or
on Groklaw, and much of the the documentation that you have so effectively made
available will be of critical importance to the legal outcomes.
You seem to have a healthy aversion to media hype about yourself and Groklaw. I
think the best thing to do in future interviews is to make the case for the
preeminent information value of Groklaw, over and above its role as a forum for
opinions. Of course, the web log paradigm inherently provides a seamless mixture
of fact and opinion. But you have done a good job in making it easy for anyone
to distinguish fact from opinion. Your adversaries would do well to learn from
your example
So, take care of youself, stay safe, and keep on leading the way forward as we
follow the information!
P.S. I would like to request that you post a link to the "Unix History
Project" on the homepage. I believe that this project may have far-reaching
significance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shingebis on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
Fyodor does restrict SCO from using nmap, based on violations he
charges them with regarding the GPL. He says that SCO appears to have stopped
distributing nmap, but he asks if anyone notices them doing so, to let him
know.
So, he told them to stick to the GPL or stop distributing
it, and they did. You might say he enforced the GPL.
No, wait,
that can't be right. Somebody told me the GPL was unenforceable... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BobRoberts on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST |
Hey PJ, I know a few people have recommended legal action against SCO for this
and that. You may have a case, but I wouldn't go for it. It just *feels* like
you would be resorting to thier level, which I think is beneath you. Sitting
back and smiling is much more of a smack in the face.
As long as you are given a public arena to respond to claims, we can all sit
back and enjoy the "damages" you collect :). Take care PJ, get some
sleep.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: aug24 on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST |
| Copied
from /. cos it's an excellent observation:
I think Forbes
supports SCO as a Microsoft proxy. The article is full of statements which don't
really make sense.
I particularly liked this part: "Generally, if an IP
holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license,
thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is
persuasive to a jury,"
So the score is SCO 4 GPL
4,000,000.
Except I reckon it's far more like "SCO 4, GPL
4,000,000,000 ;-)
Justin.
---
--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: technoCon on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST |
<tongue in cheek>
Given that his darlness is complaining of death threats from Linux zealot
felons, let's do a remake of the movie: "The Usual Suspects."
Playing the part of the shadowy man of international intrigue would be the
master-mind Linus Torvalds. He could pose as this sort of geekish looking...
...oh, that's what all the usual suspects would look like.
Better rethink this.
</tongue in cheek>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST |
Detail to bear in mind:
When the journalist reports what a SCOundrel said, that's simply doing his job -
reporting what others have said. So when some of the less well-hinged posters
on your site spout drivel in follow-ups to your well-researched articles, the
site's software is simply doing its job; or when you link to another site's
article which might be somewhat contentious, you're simply doing your job -
reporting what others have said.
If the SCOundrel points to these things and claims they discredit GrokLaw,
remind journalists that they don't want that line of reason believed in - or
they're equally tarred every time they report the preposterous slanders of the
SCOundrels. If journalists - whose job is to research the material and provide
a balanced view of the subjects on which they report - can hide behind that
shield, then so can you. The true irony here is that you - an amateur with an
avowed advocacy stance - are researching the facts more thoroughly and providing
a more balanced and fair view than the journalists seem able to produce.
The primary articles here, and a great part of the posts, form an excellent
resource that the journalists (among others) would do well to read. They need
to learn that the views expressed in comments - some by trolls, some by zealots,
but others by calmer heads - do not necessarily reflect your opinions; they
should be assessed on their merits, just like the public utterances of the
SCOundrels. I have no doubts which side will come better out of that.
Keep up the good work, PJ.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:29 PM EST |
I just did a google search on Groklaw and there was only one Google ad blue
"click" box in the upper rt corner, and it was for LinuxInsider.
Who are these guys...
Who is behind this LinuxInsider?
How long have they been around?
What is the history of LinuxInsider?
Was the whole article a LinuxInsider kind of Troll to get noticed, or what?
Whoever they are they are not really truely LINUX - IBM or SCO knowledgable, so
how can they claim to be "LinuxInsider"? Maybe they know more about
SCO then we know?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST |
A week or so ago, when the issue of PJ's address going on-line broke, PJ wrote
something to the effect of "If something happens to me, you'll know who's
to blame." I felt that was the kind of inflammatory junk that only comes
from SCOundrels, and suggested that PJ tone it down.
I'm sorry, PJ. The Yahoo posting shows that you were right. You're dead-on
when you say that SCO should renounce threats like these. You're right that the
SCOundrels have to take some blame if anything happens. And we'll be as
vigilant as we can be to ensure that nothing does happen.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Avenger on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:18 PM EST |
I don't think they left out too much of the important parts.
At least they try to look objective. This is much better than you get from
Enderle.
Halperin is either genuinely trying to be objective or this is just the
beginning of a more subtle FUD strategy.
In either case, keep your polite face on ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbn on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST |
The number of users of GNU/Linux software is greater than the
population of some countries in the UN. Linus doesn't screen who gets to use his
kernel. That's how Darl got to use it. Neither does the FSF screen and choose
who can use their software. Not yet, anyway.
It would
be nice if there was a source for the opinion that the FSF is going to "screen
and choose who can use" GNU/Linux. I don't recall ever reading or hearing that
they would do this nor is it compatible with the concept of software freedom.
Placing conditions on someone's ability to copy or modify free software is not
the same as placing conditions on its use (that is, merely executing the
software) and the
FSF has said that they don't believe one can set conditions for running software
through copyright law alone when they criticized Apple for attempting to do
this in the Apple Public Source License (or APSL):
At a
fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became accepted, would
stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims to be able to set
conditions for simply *running* the software. As I understand it, copyright law
in the US does not permit this, except when encryption or a license manager is
used to enforce the conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt
at making a free software license resulted in an extension of the effective
range of copyright power.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nerpzilla on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:38 PM EST |
My favorite exercise in hypocrisy:
... On January 27th, Pamela Jones
chose to post a story from Newsforge that was written by Bruce Perens. In this
story, Bruce suggested the following:That he has "assembled ample evidence that
they [SCO] have lied under oath in court." ...
Has any specific
evidence about SCO lying under oath actually been presented or come forward? Not
to my knowledge.
...
This is one example of how in SCO's opinion, a
lot of misinformation is posted on Groklaw.
Has any specific
evidence about SCO code in linux actually been presented or come
forward?
what's good for the gander is sauce for the goose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
