|
Entire Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Resigns |
|
Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT
|
Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Magazine Announce Resignations
MONTVALE, New Jersey, May 14 th, 2005 --- The entire senior editorial staff of LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that they will be leaving the magazine, effective immediately. The following statement was released by the group. “We regret that Sys-Con Media has been unable to apply a standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably operate under. We feel that recent articles published with the consent of Sys-Con Media fail to meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and because the management of Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the articles are by all informed judgment ethically unsupportable, we have decided we must find other avenues for our work.” FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: James Turner turner at blackbear.com 603-552-2020 Dee-Ann LeBlanc dee at renaissoft.com (604) 898-8433
****************************
Note from PJ: For background, see the following: Resignations:
http://turner.linuxworld.com/
http://dee.linuxworld.com/
http://www.braingia.org/webnotes/index.php? title=linuxworld_resignation&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Interview with publisher:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/pills/fuat_kircaali_interview/
I think the reason the SCO saga is so compelling to so many is because it is, among other things, a story about morals.
UPDATE:
A bit more from James Turner here And A Publisher's Ethics by Dana Blankenhorn, and with a picture of Fuat Kircaali
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
... given the statements made by the publisher in an online interview. He
didn't see a single thing wrong with the content of Maureen O'Gara's
"investigative reporting" article.
$DIETY help us if that's what's going
to pass as ethical journalism in the future.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not surprising... - Authored by: ChocoNutDancer on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Not surprising...even reasonable... - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- The advertising boycott only just started - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Not surprising... - Authored by: VivianC on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- Bug report - Authored by: reuben on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Bug report - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Bug report - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Why did Fuat do that interview? - Authored by: frumpus on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Time to start boycott of Sys-Con Media's Magazines and sites - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Not surprising... - Authored by: Dana Blankenhorn on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- translation of a foreing language post - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 04:21 AM EDT
- Not surprising... - Authored by: jplatt39 on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Let's not discuss this too much. It is off-topic for Groklaw IMVHO. Let's
discuss law and legal issues, instead of starting a slashdot-like forum to flame
unethical journalists who do not matter anyway one SCO goes down, or to praise
the ones who have the courage to take a stance.
I'm much more curious
about when there will be a ruling on the 3rd amended compliant motions and all
the other pending motions... *taps impatiently on keyboard* [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ssavitzky on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Let's give a cheer for courage and integrity in journalism, and hope they all
find a new home that <em>honors</em> courage and integrity.
---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shareme on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
PJ in support of Lw editors I removed my content from group led Eclipse article
being prepared for JDJ, a syscon property, at the wiki eclipsepowered..
I know you probably will not directly lkink the SSYSCON CEOP interview here as
it was quite bad both in lack of accountability and other issues..
This is not the first time SYScon has refused to follow journalistic standards,
there were flare ups before MOG was invited to be an editor at SysCon..
On the subject of DDso agaisnt SYscon sites .. the site was damn slow before
this due to the design implemented before MOG even came on board..
I did nto onitce any differenc ein speed of the syscon site during the alledge
DDOs attakcs the CEO of syscon is referring to or the information given to the
ediors of LW conerncing this issue..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
P.J., first of all I support what you are doing and share your views. Why don't
you do an interview with a real jouralist? You've made yourself a public
figure. I think the public is entitled to an interview describing your
background.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- P.J. Interview. Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:02 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: TomWiles on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- OT: Borklaw - Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- OT: Borklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- OT: Borklaw - Authored by: fb on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- Abstemiously? - Authored by: Kevin on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:47 PM EDT
- Public "entitled" to a PJ interview? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- PJ is not a public figure - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Not entirely sure I agree Quatermass - Authored by: AMc on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: The Cornishman on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Bright Red Fish on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- Just ask Letterman, etc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- See "Mission/Index" in the menu on the left ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- A brief BIO on a website would be enough - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Fame defined - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- A good example... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - exactly what SCO want! - Authored by: emmenjay on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview.. Folks hit this one! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- My, what a lot of anonymous comments! - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- It's more fun this way. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- Disagree - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- We, the public, are entitled to NOTHING - Authored by: Briareus on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:11 PM EDT
- P.J. Interview - Authored by: fcw on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:04 AM EDT
- Please don't feed the trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 09:33 AM EDT
- Clarification from the original poster - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- Aha, the penny drops ... - Authored by: dmarker on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 05:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: dtidrow on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
To find out why, go here
Basically
the SYS-CON publisher says, "We did nothing wrong, ethically or legally" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- tinyurl 'plaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
This is quoted from the top center of the Linux Business News website:
"To Our Valued Readers: (May 13, 2005) - Our syndication arrangement with
LinuxGram has recently ended after ethical questions raised by our readers in
one of the articles published in last week's issue. I agree with their view on
this matter and we pulled the article shortly after it was published.
I apologize to our readers, to the open source community, our LinuxWorld
editors, and Ms. Pamela Jones for publishing the article.
Fuat Kircaali Publisher, SYS-CON Media" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ GETS AN APOLOGY! - Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT
- This late in the game, a purely financial decision. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- If it was real it would be on Sys-Con. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- PJ GETS AN APOLOGY! - Authored by: bmushnick on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT
- Sincere Aplogy???? Seriously doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- PJ GETS AN APOLOGY! - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Time to move on - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- Kircaali got larted. - Authored by: mscibing on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- you can say what you want, but this takes courage - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:36 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Just an idea for PJ. How about asking James and Dee-Ann to be the journalistic
ethics contributing editors here at Groklaw.
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Who else is upping stumps other than James and Dee-Ann? Is Mark R. Hinkle
(editor in chief) leaving?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WillRobinson on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
Im glad their takeing a good integrity stance on this. We need to stay the
course too. Now lets get back to the fish fry![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Choose one of the two following questions to answer,:
1-Assumming this weren't Sys-Con, what if this were CBS, Time Magazine, NBC, the
New York Times, CNN or some other media stalwart. If one of their reporters had
"ETHICALLY" reported a story and if they had gotten the equivalent of
the kind of denial of service attack that Sys-Con says they did, what possible
responses would their respective management have had?
2-Assumming this weren't Sys-Con, what if this were CBS, Time Magazine, NBC, the
New York Times, CNN or some other media stalwart. If one of their reporters had
"NOT ETHICALLY" reported a story and if they had gotten the equivalent
of the kind of denial of service attack that Sys-Con says they did, what
possible responses would their respective management have had?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- denial of denial of service - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Essay Test - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- No DDOS, just Slashdot Effect - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- might be a dumb question... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Slashdot effect - Authored by: bmushnick on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Essay clarification from thread starter - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Essay question answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Essay Test - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Essay Test - what to do about SYS-CON - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- Essay Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:32 AM EDT
- Life imitates Groklaw? Newsweek Apologizes for Quran Story Errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- You forgot Newsweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Bas Burger on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
I am glad that some people take resposibility for their own actions and
believes, If I were in the same situation I probably would have made the same
choice. Because whatever job you do, you always have the resposibility to act in
a conscience way. People that hide behind their duty or job are cowards mostly.
Like you I read the interview, at some point it turned my stomach in a horible
way, what some people do or don't do for money is sickning.
Thanks for showing your integrity and I sure hope that other media has a good
place for you to carry on with your job.
Bas Burger.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TerryL on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
Oh dear, I thought we had put this nasty incident behind us, but it seems
not.
I've just looked at LinuxBusinessNews to see if they'd put more up but
what I saw at the top of the front page (if in small print) was a statement that
I thought people had been calling for, (and I quote)...
To Our Valued
Readers: (May 13, 2005) - Our syndication arrangement with LinuxGram has
recently ended after ethical questions raised by our readers in one of the
articles published in last week's issue. I agree with their view on this matter
and we pulled the article shortly after it was published.
I apologize to our
readers, to the open source community, our LinuxWorld editors, and Ms. Pamela
Jones for publishing the article.
Fuat Kircaali Publisher, SYS-CON
Media
Now, does ANYONE have a simple explanation for what the [very warm
place where bad people end up] is happening?
I do hope some legal events
happen soon, so we can get back to the important business of the SCO v IBM v SCO
law suit and all the little law suits that have sprung up in it's
wake.
Terry
PS. I do hope the staff who have shown moral courage find
good alternative outlets. I'm not familiar with their output but I shall be
watching for their by-lines. They seem to deserve some support. --- All
comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
PJ -- any chance you can shorten those links you added at article bottom? they
are blowing out my 800x600 screen. How about shortening the description to the
domain name only??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
Do we know how many have resigned and if they plan on starting up a magzine of
their own?
I would not have bet on this
happening but I am very happy to see it happen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
So at a guess, it seems to me the biggest fallout from all this and
the SCOG saga will be the large number of people and
companies who will be discredited and demoted reputations. But
then that's probably obvious.
I am glad there are those in the media who have the courage to
call a spade a spade and take moral actions to heart.
---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
And the next pass is here:
From the Publisher of Linux
Business Week
Where in, Mr Kircaali says -
We stand by all the
stories we have published, including the breaking news stories of Ms. Maureen
O'Gara. We have been proudly bringing her investigative reporting and news to
our readers since December 13, 2002 and we will continue to do so.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ssavitzky on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
Personally, I'm tired of seeing anonymous posts that say "let's get back to
talking about SCO". There are two things these people are ignoring --
probably deliberately:
1. Metadiscussions about Groklaw, PJ, and what other journalists are saying
about them are perfectly on-topic. If nothing else, it's a simple matter of
fairness: if other people are discussing PJ on their own turf, PJ has a perfect
right to respond on hers.
2. Groklaw is *PJ's personal blog*. She controls what's going on here, the rest
of us are just along for the ride. PJ puts less of herself into Groklaw than
many bloggers who mainly cover political or legal subjects; if she suddenly
decides to take us into her confidence over her pet cat, her family, or a
beautiful sunset, I for one am not going to complain.
Summary: the "Back" button is your friend. If you don't like the
topic, or it's not interesting, feel free to use it.
---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
We're not in jail and we're making money.
What else is there to talk about?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: heretic on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Some real information about the "DDOS attack" on sys-con.
http://www.braingia.org/webnotes/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
When will people figure that out? Of course, maybe they already know they can't
fight the truth so they fight those who speak it.
---
AYNIL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bobn on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
While I approve the former-senior-editors's show of integrity, Sys-Con has now
had the last ounce of restraint removed.
There is no telling what kind of
junk will now appear under mastheads containing "Linux" in the name
(LinuxWorld.com, linuxbusinessweek.com etc.) --- IRC:
irc://irc.fdfnet.net/groklaw
the groklaw channels in IRC are not affiliated with, and not endorsed by,
either GrokLaw.net or PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dopple on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
I gave the interview a pass when it first came out.. I didn't expect anything
interesting to come from it. Now, after reading it, I'm reeling from the number
of unflattering interpretations about his business he managed to pack into a few
short statements. I mean, we've got:
- They don't find anything
wrong with publishing someone's personal information without verification or
consent.
And this one's lost them some good, free labor who obviously
cared about the company's direction..
- They will pull articles that
become controversial, even if they don't think there's anything wrong with the
article.
Any potential authors will love that, I'm sure
- They
will buckle under pressure of an (alleged) DoS, to the point of dumping a paid
author even while they defend the article.
More food for thought for
potential authors..
- They will openly attack people who voice
displeasure to their advertisers.
I'm sure the marketers will love
having their feedback mechanism attacked..
What is it about the
SCO saga that seems to paint targets on people's footwear?
--- Never
play chicken with Nazgul. It only gets you wounds
that never heal and an annoyed judge. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
In Kercaali's interview, he claims to have fact checked
MOG's article himself
and says it is accurate (otherwise he
would not have published it or so he
says). But I got the
distinct impression based on PJ's postings that MOG,
while
looking for PJ, found PJ's mother instead. In which case
the
information published would be inaccurate as
well as invasive; is this
not correct?
Or is Kercaali just talking through his hat? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OK, someone explain something to me... - Authored by: Ninthwave on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- OK, someone explain something to me... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- PUT IT THIS WAY - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- his "hat", yes, talking through his "hat", hehehe [n/t] - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Fact-checking - Authored by: _Arthur on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
I've seen several mentions that it's likely only the /. effect and not a true
DDoS. What I haven't seen is anyone point out the obvious logical fallacy in
the whole DDoS argument anyway.
There is an automatic assumption by
SYS-CON that any DDoS *must* come from Linux/Groklaw/PJ supporters. Why? Would
a well-timed DDoS not benefit SCOX, MOG, et. al., even more than anyone who
supports Groklaw? A DDoS against SCOX, SYS-CON, Marine Iguana, etc. serves no
purpose other than to make their enemies appear to have unclean hands. And
*that* plays directly into the hands of SCOX supporters.
I
automatically assume every time there is a statement about a DDoS happening that
it *must* have originated with SCOX supporters. There is more evidence of their
willingness to play dirty than the other way round. And there's more evidence
of their lack of ethics. Which makes it quite logical to figure they are likely
to launch a DDoS attack on themselves just so they can claim their enemies are
unethical, have unclean hands, and just generally make their enemies look
bad.
I would absolutely love to see actual proof of who is responsible
for the alleged DDoS attacks. If it *is* someone who supports Groklaw, PJ,
Linux, and/or FOSS, we could reprimand them and see they are punished by
law...hopefully making it clear such behavior is reprehensible and does more
damage to their own cause than it does good...thereby curtailing such
activity.
But if it were proven to be controlled/launched by SCOX
supporters, they could be outed, reprimanded, punished by the law, etc. And
they'd lose one more FUD tactic. Which is why I'm betting no such evidence will
ever see the light of day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NastyGuns on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
Please put all OT comments here.
Please create links in HTML format as follows:
<a href="http://www.example.com">Link Name Here</a>
Please make sure your post mode is HTML format.
To start things off, has stats_for_all or anyone else found any further
information on the tSCOg & Vista deal?
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: linux world continues great reporting - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Missed out on a Great Business Opportunity :( - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- "IBM town" mindset - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- MOG: As factually inaccurate and vile as ever - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- TOBACCO. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- UK Government and IT. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- "eBay Asks Supreme Court to Hear Patent Case" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- "Supreme Court: Patent Professors Support Tighter Obviousness Standard" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:51 PM EDT
- "IBM backs Firefox in-house" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- Where's SYS-CON? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- Startling progress in Wallace v FSF - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- "Europe: Time running out for Microsoft" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Remember the original article was, allegedly, Part 1 of her "expose"
with Part 2 to come soon.
Perhaps she'll try to destroy her own G2News/Linuxgram publications now she's
decimated LinuxWorld.
Part of me hopes she does (so long as there isn't any more stuff like phone nos
etc in it that truly endanger PJs privacy) - just more general ravings.
It'll be interesting to see which wins out: her ego or her instinct for
professional self preservation!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NastyGuns on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
Dear Steve, James, Dee-ann, and all the other former Linux-World editors:
The ethics, integrity, and professional standards all of you have displayed
during this incident have shown you to be responsible reporters. Therefore, if
you have missed the other suggestions above in this article, let me state that
if all of you were to start your own magazine, newletter, or whatever else, I'll
do whatever is in my means to help support your endeavors. Just so long as you
continue to display the aforementioned traits, even when being critical of FOSS
projects.
Sincerely, --- NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
Just wondering if anyone knows who it is that stands between MoG and Fuat
Kircaali -- presumably the chief editor of LBN? Kircaali is the CEO guy and --
thought he <i>should</i> know something about journalistic ethics,
he might not. The actual editor who looked at MoG's piece and said "run
it" definitely knew what heshe was doing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
I don't log in often. There appears to be a problem
somewhere in the
cookies that are used by Groklaw and
Konqueror (numerous versions, currently
3.2.3) that mean I
have to set the cookie security as: accept all cookies. I
felt this situation to be important enough to log in.
This morning I
finally actually read Mr. Kircaali's
interview. I finally got a real taste of
what his point
of view was. I'm not sure how to describe it. I did make
an
immediate decision.
It takes a lot for a company to get on my blacklist.
In this case, the blacklist is a list of all
individuals/companies that I
will NOT do business with for
any cost. Previously there was only two
companies. Now
Mr. Kircaali has been added. Along with himself will be
any
business he ever has controlling ownership or
controlling management over.
On the other hand, the three individuals who have been
listed as resigning
have just joined PJ on a very small
"Highly respected writers" list. I'll be
giving their
future articles as much effort to read as I do PJ's.
On a
side-note, I still think O'Gara and company has
gone far enough that PJ should,
at the very least, press
charges if possible.
In the event this seems
to be the act of an extreme
individual, the decision is within my legal rights
as a
consumer.
Addition to my normal sig: The strong must stand up for
what's right, otherwise the weak have no protection.
--- There are
many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses. - RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
A bit of history.
Buyers and users of computing were well upset over what
they perceived as a rip-off over M$ change of licensing practices rapidly
followed by Y2K issues which they well understood when talking about some
software dating from the 70's or 80's but found it harder to justify when
talking about Office97.
They looked at their coffers and didn't appreciate
what was happening and for the first time in years they began listening to their
techies instead of reading DRM's promotional rubbish.
UK's Education ministry
thinks it can save 50% on my tax contribution by using open source software. You
won't change their minds: Just what do you think the minister could say to the
public when he is interviewed on the National TV news?
Some companies saw
this coming, just like some people have called Intel's Itanium chip (I have
nothing against Intel, they are on the right side, they'll catch up, they just
made a mistake.) the Itanic since around the same time.
Fuat your customers
are just like you, they want to see competition amongst their suppliers, not
legalised cartels.
Most DRM outfits adjusted their stance since Groklaw and
others started deFUDing a couple of years ago. They responded to their readers
email's. They listened to their market. SYS-CON have not.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
"Hell hath no fury like a community scorned..."
(apologies to William Congreve)
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: J.F. on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
Apparently, someone forgot to add this.
Please change the turner link to "http://turner.blog-city.com/"
I imagine the dee link will change as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
James Turner, former senior editor of LinuxWorld wrote Fred Brown of the Society
of Professional Journalists Ethics Commitee. Here is what Fred Brown wrote:
James,
I agree with you. That piece by O'Gara definitely is outside the norms of good
journalism. It's bullying, insulting and harassing, and I, for one, really don't
get the point of it. That's not to say that other journalists are sometimes
guilty of those sins, but that still doesn't make it
good journalism.
So I don't think you did the wrong thing in using you First Amendment rights to
call for O'Gara's ouster or reprimand or whatever. The SPJ Code of Ethics says
ethical journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and
the news media" and "abide by the same high standards to which they
hold others."
Fred Brown
Co-chair, SPJ Ethics Committee
http://turner.linuxworld.com/read/1277987.htm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
PJ has already explained a few times that she is not needed to run the site.
So what is her role in all this?
She is an icon for the people reading Groklaw.
And that is what I don't get. Why in the world did MOG attack an icon? At least
in this way.
People rally around icons if they (the icons) are attacked. An icon attacked in
the wrong way will only inspire a desire to defend it. The only way to attack an
icon is using the truth not with the personal attack that MOG launched.
So why did MOG do it this way?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Pills
Interview with Fuat Kircaali, CEO of Sys-Con:
Fuat
Kircaali: "What does ethics have anything to do with professional reporting
and journalism?"
That quote says it all :O
Oh and if you
read the interview you see that speaking to his advertisers is a *VERY*
affective strategy, that hit him where it hurt...money ..money
...money.
PS I think this "we've been DoS'd thing" he is bleating about
is getting old! (He’s never heard of Slashdot?)
Pathetic
--- "They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
I don't think this is over, folks.
The former Senior Editor at LinuxWorld, Turner, says on his blog that he was
called by a Forbes (or was it Fortune - don't have the blog page in front of me)
writer named Lyons (IIRC) who asked a LOT of really weird questions about PJ
that were clearly biased against PJ and for MoG.
Turner's take is that this guy will be writing a Forbes piece and Turner wanted
to put his responses online first so any quotes the guy takes out of context
will be obvious.
It's beginning to look to me that a lot of this - SCO gets investments on
Microsoft's advice, Darl attacks PJ, MoG attacks PJ, Fuat attacks OSS people for
a DDoS, now some bozo at Forbes attacks PJ - may well be an orchestrated attack
on PJ and, more importantly, by extension OSS.
And we know only two companies who are at the forefront of anti-OSS propaganda.
Stay tuned.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DWitt_nyc on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
Ever more and more, I appreciate the genius of the GPL, and the FOSS
concept--in a world where corporations have more rights than people do,
and
can buy, bribe or
steal pretty much whatever they want, the appearance of the
Open Source
movement is like the ultimate uncorruptable judge.
At it's
core, this isn't about Linux zealots, journalistic ethics and DDOS
attacks,
it's about the
irresistable force of capitalism being slammed by an immovable
object--Sys-
CON, G2, SCO, et al are all operating on the Microsoft business
model of
cronyism and kleptocracy that's up against something that
they can't
buy out, co-opt, litigate to death, or drown in FUD.
Business needs Linux
more than Linux needs business. At this point and
beyond, if businesses want to
tap into the massive resources of Linux and
FOSS, they have to play by the
rules of the GPL, and learn to coexist with the
culture of the Open
Source
community. Some get it, some don't, and those who are just
pretending to get it
will eventually be outed for what they really are--and
some, like Fuat
Kirccali, simply have their brains explode from failed hubris
and
massive
cognitive dissonance... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nonad on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
Without further comment, an e-mail I just sent to Fuat...
====
Fuat, you and I have swapped e-mails in the past, and even then your actions
spoke louder than the words you said.
Your apology to your readers, staff, editors, Ms Jones, and whomever else
finally made you uncomfortable enough to finally put that tiny print blurb on
one of your pages, is certainly "too little, too late."
The lack of ethical grounding shown by not only your recent actions, but by your
historical actions do not sit well.
You have the final say, control, and responsibility - you set the tone - for
everything published under the Sys-Con banner.
Sadly, I doubt this little flap will seriously affect your enterprises, but we
can always hope that it shows up in your bottom line and that you REMEMBER WHY.
Ethics, Fuat, ethics.
Take care,
Tom
====
This is not the first and certainly not the only time that Fuat has, at least at
first, refused to take any responsibility for what happens at his companies.
Maybe this time there will be enough of a kerfuffle for him to take notice and
remember.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
You can post links as <a
href="http://www.example.com/">clickable
HTML</a> and previewing your post is usually a good idea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
See copy of letter in the article at
http://turner.blog-city.com/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: El_Heffe on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
Yes it's true .... MOG is an unethical low-life and the publisher of LinuxWorld
isn't much better. No argument there.
So a bunch of "Senior Editors" ... who in reality are nothing more
than unpaid volunteers ... have quit. Any this proves exactly what ... ?
Yes sir .. they really showed 'em!! Quitting a job that you do for free really
takes a lot of guts!!
SysCon will have no problem finding replacements for the departed "Senior
Editors" as well as a FUD slinging replacement for MOG.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it" - anonynmous[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's not the action, it's the effect - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- You so missed the point - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- "...nothing but unpayed volunteers..." - Authored by: Mike Steele on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 10:48 PM EDT
- What else are they supposed to do - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 11:40 PM EDT
- Volunteer Fireman Demands Apology - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:17 AM EDT
- Entire Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Resigns - Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Entire Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Resigns - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT
- These are publications about Open Source - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
For a moment there, I thought maybe the entire editorial staff of
LinuxBusinessWeek were the ones that resigned, but then I realized you were
talking about Linux World. Guess I read the article too fast and confused the
two.
Anyway, why would the editors of Linux World leave their positions? What
connection does Linux World have with Sys-con? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: iMeowbot on Saturday, May 14 2005 @ 09:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
FOLLOWING THE LITTLE TIFF between Groklaw and Maureen O'Gara here
and here, it seems that the editor in chief at Sys-Con has decided to
give an interview about it here. The long and the short of the interview
seems to be an unrepentant Fuat wondering what all the fuss is about.
I have
emailed Fuat with questions about the interview, but so far, no
reply...............
The Inq. Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Have we gotten to the state where we have no privacy at all. People can hire a
PI, and get all your personal information, and that of your children and parents
too, and then just publish it in a nationally syndicated article? Is there a
law against that? Can they be sued for Millions? I suppose if anything bad
happens to any of the people because of that published information, there is at
least recovery of damages, and perhaps treble damages because it might be proved
there was malice in publishing this stuff. It looks malicious to me. I would
think that the controlling people would think this went a little too far and has
now subjected them to possible legal and maybe even criminal action. Somebody
wasn't thinking or watching. Either that or this is not the reaction they
expected. Why did they do this? It looks like a big mistake.
If this is legal to do, I would like to know all about Darl's family, and their
addresses and phone numbers, not to mention pictures of them and their houses.
At least I would like to know about MOG's family and house, and her number, and
Fuat's also. If this is legal to do, let's find out all the interesting details
about all these people. They could find it out about us. Maybe MOG is not who
she says she is. Maybe Darl either. I bet there would be some pretty
interesting stuff. I wonder what some of his distant relatives would say about
him, or former landlords, college buddies, or high-school classmates. Might be
some interesting stuff.
And a DoS is a really weak claim verses putting people's info out, making it
easier for people to do them wrong. I haven't seen this done before. Not that
it hasn't been done before, but it is not very common.
What were they thinking? It is just amazing. Well, I hope they keep coming out
with this type stuff and keep revealing their true motives and character.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
Please do not take this as a slam against the editors who had the integrity to
do the right thing.
I am not a reader of LinuxWorld. I may have purchased a magazine or two at a
newstand, but I don't remember for sure. What I do remember is my
impression of LinuxWorld. I remember thinking these magazines were not up
to the level of the other choices available. Typically, I looked for mid-level
to
advanced topics, and I got those from other journals, whereas LW seemed
targetted to the more novice. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not what I was
looking for, so I didn't spend my money on it.
Now, I keep hearing about how much of a "powerhouse" SysCon is
supposed
to be, and how important and widely-read LinuxWorld was, and I'm left
confused, and wondering if they really had some meat and potatoes in there,
or if they were able to attract a larger readership by getting them while they
were novices, and "growing up" with them, so to speak.
Is SysCon really that much of a big deal? Is LinuxWorld really as big as he (the
publisher) and others seem to be making it out to be? Was my impression of
the magazine that far off-base? Or is it really the "entry-level"
magazine for
the masses?
If it weren't for the current events, I might have been persuaded to look a
little deeper to see for myself. Now, however, I will not let my hard-earned
money (or time or page views) go to support them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rezende on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
In the wake of this MOG-SYS-CON shakedown, following a stalking attack on PJ's
identity, someone called on PJ: "You've made yourself a public figure. I think
the public is entitled to an interview describing your background". Another one
(parent), implying such entitlement, quotes entries for "public figure" from
dictionaries to beg an anwser: "what other words can better describe PJ's
stature"? Indeed, "public figure" is a good description of PJ's stature.
But
what is PJ? Note: my rethorical question is not "who", but "what". My question
is framed to explore how being a public figure can relate to the public being
entitled to a background on who is behind "PJ". According to the quoted
dictionary of Law, a public figure is a personage. According to
Merriam-Webster, as a noun a public figure is an estimation, an
acclaim. Stature, personage, estimation, acclaim, can we find a common
root to such categorizations of the PJ thing? ("thing" here is meant to be
syntactical, not offensive)
Persona, or personal identity. Ultimately,
identity.
Identity is a byproduct of identification.
Identification can be best described here as in computer security: the bundling
of relations involving an entity (entity: from the latin word for
"being"). Thus, a bundle of relations yelds an id-entity (id: "this" in
latin). If an identity describes, defines or fits a social role, it can be
tagged by what professor Roger Clark (from Australian National University) calls
a "nym".
A nym common to several identities (in the sense of social
roles performable by one and the same entity) is a common name. My civil
name (the one in my driver's license) is a common name. My civil name serves to
bundle various identities I am led to, or choose do engage, in my social life.
My civil name commonly tags my professor, father and brazilian citizen
identities, as well as others which my self performs. But not all nyms are meant
to serve as common names.
That is to say, not all identity tags are meant
to further bundle other social roles performed by the same entity. For example,
a pseudonym. If the nature of a social role allows, one can create a nym to tag
only it. However, whether this nym will be effective as pseudonym, able to
insulate its tagging fuction to its designated role, depends not only on the
role's nature, but also on the relations bundled into, and on how the entity
plays it. A username for an account at groklaw.net, such as "PJ", is an example
of such a nym.
A pseudonym is good for estabishing an identity for some
role, by and under the control of its performing entity, but difficult to be so
kept as the role grows in importance and complexity. Which ammounts to saying:
as it becomes worthy of pseudonymity. This is because the more a role bundles
relations, the greater the chance of leakage into other roles played by its
entity; and the more social value this bundling builds, around an otherwise
misterious entity, the more watchful other related entities become, for such
leaks.
Carelessness, indiscretion, social engineering, spying and stalking
can render a nym innefective as pseudonym. If a relation leaks across social
roles, allowing distinct identities of a common entity to be linked, the
knowledge of this can bundle roles, rendering their identities' nyms
semiologically equivalent. That is, they become syno-nyms, with the
pseudonym innefective as such if the other nym is a common name. Having gone so
far as to reach semiology, we can now wrap it up with a view on privacy, the
right "to be left alone". Privacy is, also, one's control over the possibilities
of one's social roles being commonly bundled and tagged.
Where valued,
privacy is not cheaply reached through pseudonymity, as argued. Thus, in
societies where privacy is valuable, some social acts are allowed by law to be
performed anonymously. Someone wishing to act while avoiding identification of
the act's origin, even as part of a role played by an entity unknown for any
other role, will act anonymously. If an entity acting anonymously is named, it
would be either by someone else, or inconsistently through the role defined by
such wish (for anonymity). Either way, this will not effectively tag an
identity, in the sense given here. The "name" would be an ano-nym. (a
non-name, as "Anonymous" in GL posts)
We are now ready to analyse the
MOG-SYS-CON episode. The main questions now seem to be: Why was MOG so
determined to write that piece? Why was SYS-CON publisher so insensitive to its
controversial nature, unable to fathom the likely consequences of publishing it?
Why was he so slow to grasp the ethical dimention of the controversy, first
blaming what happened on zealotry from the FOSS community? Why such an explosive
reaction from some corners of the community, at least in the eyes of some
outsiders, like SYS-CON publisher and a Forbes reporter?
The values at stake
in a social role played by an entity seem to depend on values grounded at other
roles the same entity plays along. Does it? To what extent? It depends, of
course, on the nature of the role, and on values held by stakeholders to
evaluate their stakes in that role. A stakeholder's perception of an entity's
motivation for playing that role, is a good example of value at stake. Trials,
investigative and legal strategies, or investment and trading strategies, are
examples of roles where such things matter. These are ultimately trust issues.
Like it or not, knowing or not, PJ set herself to build a social role with,
at and for groklaw, which groklaw diehards regard as historically unique. GL's
social role is unprecedented, in its challenge to neutrilize an unparalleled
attack on rules designed for striking judicial fairness. The values at stake are
enormous, and of two different types: economic and moral. They were so put at
risk by a suicidal gambling strategy, from known and not-so-known stakeholders,
bound to despise and downplay one of those value types, grounding the motivation
for PJ to set up and breed GL's role, through which such despising and
downplaying are countered. A breed, again, unprecedented, this one in its
colaborative prowess.
On evaluating the risks drawn upon herself by
setting up and running groklaw, she decided to prioritize her privacy. She made
the name "Pamela Jones" (of which "PJ" is an acro-nym) function as a
pseudonym for her identity as groklaw author and manager. She did so by being
vague on whether that was her "real" (civil) name, by being careful not to
reveal relations in GL which could leak her GL identity into her common
identity, and counting on the fact that, if "Pamela Jones" was indeed her common
name, it would put hurdles into bundling her common identity with her GL
identity, for that is a 'popular' civil name. Which is to say, a likely
homo-nym.
In some sense, I think this was a smart move. She could
tender her privacy while being indirect about running GL from a pseudonym.
Regular and careful readers learned to value GL for its solid-rock consistency,
cohesiveness and fact-finding and fact-based orientations and moral values,
regarless of nym status. FUD-busting at its purest. And among those, the ones
who care more about the moral values at stake at some suicidal gambling
adventure that brought us here, found PJ's motivations for setting up and
running GL to be self-evident. No need to anchor its perception on other roles
the person behind the PJ acronym may play in life.
Those, can respect PJ's
risk evaluation, prizing her privacy over her fame. Those, can figure why a
background knowledge of her other roles in common life is not as important as
her life itself. At this point, the fame can be good at most to satisfy
unconsciously motivated curiosities, and count page hits, or push to other
levels of sophistry the FUD from those who care more for gambler's money at
stake, insinuating that pseudonymity has to do with morally objectionalble facts
to be hidden. The public figure stature can, though, remain with PJ's GL's
identity. It does not have to percolate to its entity. For the sake of its
privacy and flesh-and-bone safety. These are, again, ultimately trust issues.
But if Pamela Jones is PJ's real common name, the pseudonymization move was
risky. PJ's GL's pseudonym and common name being homonyms, the stalking of PJ's
GL identity can be masked for the clueless, sold as investigative reporting
"about a mere blogger". As MOG did to SYS-CON. Those who believe that the two
deaths at the SCO camp so far were "mere suicides", and that money talks lauder
than morals, can not understand what all this fuss from the FOSS camp is about.
They can't fathom the gravity of this stalking on PJ's privacy and those deaths.
Some here can.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
Fuad Kircaali has put out such a stream of contradictory statements that I
almost suspect him of being afflicted with multiple personalities disorder. I
almost tempted to scream: "will the REAl Fuad Kirkaali stand up?"
However, I already know that we are the dealing with the only and only Fuad
Kirkcaali, who will say and do anything to make a buck or get himself off the
hook including apologizing to Pamela Jones.
I would say that sending an email to sys-con's advertisers with MOG's article
and the transcript of the Fuad Kircaali interview as attachments should bring
home to these advertisers the point that sys-con is a counter-productive
advertising venue. It should also bring home just why so many in the Open Source
community are avoiding sys-con, and these people who are avoiding sys-con may
very well be the very people these advertisers are trying to reach.
I am afraid that Fuad Kirkaali is one cowboy who supplied his own rope and horse
for his own hanging.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
Time to take away his toys and give him a time-out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rdc3 on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
If Groklaw continues as "merely" PJ's personal blog, then
I think that
problems such as the MOG saga are bound to
continue.
I think there may
be considerable merit to
institutionalizing Groklaw as the "Groklaw
Journal"
complete with an editorial board and an editorial
policy. This would
not only help protect PJ, it
would recognize the value of Groklaw as a
concept
worth preserving and growing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Towards the Groklaw Journal (PJ, Senior Editor) - Authored by: TerryL on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- At which point it willl no longer be usefull - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - Authored by: El Kabong on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- Towards the Groklaw Journal (PJ, Senior Editor) - Authored by: Ninthwave on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- Towards the Groklaw Journal (PJ, Senior Editor) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Sys-Con has an editorial board - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 09:50 AM EDT |
Subject of course to their desire for privacy, I suggest we try to find out
where each one went and try to drive business to their new firm(s), and away
from the SYS-CON family of publications and their advertisers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lisch on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
I finally understand. O'Gara was absolutely correct: PJ is NOT who she claims to
be. PJ is actually the author of the works of William Shakespeare. Doubtless,
O'Gara will reveal this in the second part of her exposé.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
In the interest of fair play I'm wondering if Fuat and MOG would have any
problem with a "Journalist" putting pictures of their house and all
their personal information on the web? The "public" should have the
same "right" to know more about them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support this kind of behavior at all but whatever
happened to the phrase-----Do un to others as you would have them do un to
you-----
Maby they never heard that one?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
First an apology. I am going to ramble and touch a number of different
topics. At least some of those topics will be political and will offend people
with a point of view different from my own. Never the less, I believe what I
will say has a bearing on this issue.
A review to establish the context
PJ has been collecting and disseminating information on legal issues
associated with Open Source Software. This is a topic that concerns many people
from several points of view. It has an impact on our quality of life because it
gives a handle on the risks associated with software. It has an impact on our
financial well being because it determines how the resources needed to produce
software are distributed. It has an impact on our social status because it
determines who has control of how the software is produced, who produces it, who
can use it and who can look at how it works. Not surprisingly all these
different impacts also have political consequences.
PJ is not the only
person doing this. An entire industry has grown up because of the importance of
this topic. What makes PJ important is the quality of what she does. In many
ways what she does is very ordinary. It is what people would like to expect to
be done. What is extra ordinary is that she does this in spite of considerable
pressure to meet the expectation of powerful and influential people who would
manipulate the situation to their advantage personally, economically, socially
and politically. I think she believes that ordinary people have an interest in
this and as an ordinary person herself, she needs to provide the best
information she can to ordinary people.
While I have not dug deeply into the
history of Groklaw, I have followed it for long enough to understand how it
works. That is why I said what I said in the previous paragraph. I have seen
where PJ's honesty has discommoded a number of people. The fact that she, as a
person with an ordinary point of view but extraordinary diligence and integrity,
has reached conclusion unfavorable to these people has consequence. There are a
fairly large number of these people. Some of them are aided as well as
discomforted by what she has done. These people will probably leave her to do
her work. Others will have severe problems with what she has done and will take
action to oppose her.
The opposition to PJ has taken a number of forms and
originates from a number of sources. Some of those forms are personally
threatening and some of those sources will not be constrained by moral or
ethical considerations. One of the ways to deal with personal threats is to try
to be inconspicuous. This is difficult for PJ because she has some extra
ordinary qualities. None the less she can and should try to keep her personal
life out of public view. The fact that people who are associated with the
events she is reporting have died under questionable circumstances is ample
justification for this desire.
Recent events
This sets the
background for the actions of 'MOG'. She is quite a different person from PJ.
Where PJ's opinions are apparently based on a rational evaluation of what is
happening to a large group of people, MOG's opinions seem to be primarily
emotional, personal and based on what is best for MOG and the people who can do
things for MOG.
I find it disturbing that people are allowing MOG to get
away with most of what she is doing. I did look at what she had written about
PJ and noticed that it failed to correlate with information from other sources
about PJ. MOG admitted that she might have her facts wrong. She published her
trash anyway. The fact that some people wanted to believe that trash and are
not willing to take responsibility for the results of their actions in
supporting MOG says some very bad things about those people and the state of our
society. Given that, no wonder those people resigned! What is even worse is
that many of the people who object to what is going on are blaming the wrong
people for the problem.
Politics
I am particularly bothered by
people blaming a problem on the people who bring the problem to our attention.
For example the Enron scandal is being blamed on the current administration. In
a sense the current administration IS responsible for the scandal. They refused
to cover it up. The did NOT allow 'business as usual'. I have many issues with
the guy in charge, but when he shrugged and refused to provide political cover
the perpetrators at Enron, he in fact did the right thing. Figuratively, he has
pulled the cover off the corporate financial cess pool and is in the process of
cleaning up the mess, much the same way PJ has pulled the cover off the
Intellectual Property cess pool. The fact that there is action being taken on
both these levels provides some small hope that the situation will improve.
(The fact that the guy at the top has such a narrow view on other issues limits
that hope.)
--- MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
Since Kirgaali is obviously a slimy fellow, my guess is that he will be tempted
to wait a few months until he thinks the storm has blown over, and then hire
another sleazy journalist to replace MOG.
That would be a foolish idea. People complained about MOG's article for a year.
Then a few days ago they went into action contacting advertisers, and MOG was
gone in a day.
Now sys-con is on everyone's radar. One sleazy story on oss and we will contact
advertisers immediately. And since this would be the second offense, the
advertiser's punishment would no doubt be worse.
My advice to Kirgaali would be to fight all his natural tendencies and stick to
the straight and narrow, at least as far as oss goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: star-dot-h on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
First, let me just add a note of support to PJ through this most sordid of
episodes. Many thanks for the work you do from a member of the community you are
supporting. This resource is becoming invaluable.
I do have some beef with Dana's article. I have read up to the end of the first
paragraph. I quote:
"While a journalist's ethics, like that of any other claimed profession,
may hold them well short of what's illegal, businessmen must go right up to the
legal line, even risk crossing it, to stay ahead of the competition. Businessmen
who don't think that way are easily crushed by those who do."
As a businessperson with a reasonably successful and frowing software company I
take exception. In one sentence he is excusing the actions of unethical and
illegal behaviour. "Do it this way or you will fail".
What rubbish. In our environment such behaviour is rewarded with lost staff,
lost contracts, lost customers and lost businesses, as Sys-Con are finding out
to their cost. He is also, excusing O'Gara's practises for which, frankly, there
is no excuse.
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
Steve has written the below at his blog. He says that it was his opinion
that there was a DDOS underway at SYS-CON.
Steve Suehring & SYS-CON DDOS
Jamaes Turner also made this
comment which is worth repeating here ...
### James Turner ###
I've
commented in passing, but I felt it would be good to say it
explicitly:
- Denial of Service attacks are illegal, unethical and
immoral. I've spent far too many years administering web sites to approve of
that kind of thuggish behavior.
- Comments that approve of, threaten or
celebrate denial of service attacks represent an immaturely developed ethical
system on the part of the poster.
- Anyone with direct knowledge of the
perpetrator of a DOS attack should immediate report it to the appropriate
authorities.
You win the moral battles through ethical behavior, not
property damage (and yes, a DOS is property
damage).
####################
Doug Marker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Sunday, May 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Hypothetical case ...
1) I say I am a journalist.
As a journalist I write articles and either sell them or present them to
publishers. I may even set up my own publishing business (such as on the
Internet) and 'state clearly that this is what it is' and publish my own
articles. Any reaction to these articles should be handled by me in my capacity
as a journalist.
2) I am also a private citizen with certain rights such as what bank I use,
religion I decide to belong to and what church I pray at. What school I send my
children to. These activities are unrelated to my job as a journalist.
3)I also say I am a part-time consultant.
I can perfom consulting engagements in my capacity as a part-time consultant and
these can be totally unrelated to 1 and 2 above.
4) I also say I am a blogger.
On my blog I state clearly that I will publish original law articles from the
courts and comment on them. This can be totally independant of 1, 2 and 3.
So how does saying I am a journalist suddenly make all other parts of my life
(blog included) subject to any rules of journalism ?.
Doug Marker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
hello, first time here.
nice blog, Pamela.
I don't read that stupid "enterprise Linux businesses"-geared
magazine. I got there to see the apologize in the front-page. No Linux
magazine which has a menu "LINUX LINKS YOU MUST CLICK ON !" with
"Microsoft Windows costs less & outperforms Linux" as on of its
items will ever get my respect. Not to say that seems contracditory.
i hope Linuxmag just die together with the publisher's respectability (none).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
In your item you imply that PJ made both PJ and the name Pamela Jones public at
the same time.
In reading PJ's early comments re an Internet handle, I interpreted her as
meaning that by choosing just PJ (rather than Pamela, or Jones, or Pamela Jones)
she wanted a handle that did not imply anything including a gender.
No doubt PJ had some inkling of the audience that would follow what was to come
in Groklaw (but I believe PJ had no idea of the explosion of interest and the
levels in terms of just who, took interest - such as people on Capitol Hill).
By choosing PJ, Pamela wanted to avoid the obvious ...
e.g. Pamela implies female. Jones implies a family name. Both together appear
to identify a person.
When PJ started Groklaw, I don't believe anyone knew any more than here was
someone with a net handle of PJ. That was all we knew, but as time passed, it
slipped out that Pamela Jones was her actual name and that identified her as a
'her' and gave away more than she wanted to. In time her name appeared at the
head of the Groklaw web site.
I have never read anywhere that PJ invented 'Pamela Jones' as part of a handle,
only 'PJ". From all I have read & seen I take it as a given that Pamela
Jones is PJ's real name (I qualify this comment by saying that at a personal
level I am happy to accept what ever name PJ wants to provide as in balance it
is irrelevant to the published law documents).
Cheers
Doug Marker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
This link is a good reminder ...
Linux Online Interview with
Pamela Jones
Enjoy ... (some additional comments added at bottom)
...
*****************************************************
1st part of
the interview ...
Michael J. Jordan, Linux Online Staff
July 31,
2003
Linux Online is pleased to present our visitors with an interview with
Pamela Jones who is responsible for a weblog, Groklaw, which deals with the SCO
case. Her site is an excellent resource for those looking for a well-maintained
and comprehensive guide to what's going on day-to-day surrounding the SCO
controversy.
Linux Online: First, I'd like to congratulate you on
your excellent weblog dedicated to the SCO mess. "Mess" is probably the best
word to use. I mean, I would say SCO "case", but it's pretty clear, at least
from our side of it, that they haven't really got one. What motivated you to get
started with your weblog. Were you a Linux advocate first?
Pamela
Jones: Thank you. I was an advocate only in the sense that I tend to give
Windows people I really like Knoppix CDs. I did try to find a way to contribute
in the past, but I am not a programmer and I could never find my niche or a
place I felt comfortable to be in.
I started my blog just before the SCO
case was filed. Originally, my purpose was just trying to learn how to blog,
because an attorney and I were discussing the possibility of me doing some
telecommuting work for him, including work on his blog. I had no knowledge of
blogging, so I quickly got Radio, because he used it , and I put up one article
to practice, which I never thought anyone in the world would ever see
(ironically, about the Grokster decision and how I admired David Boies' Napster
legal documents). I was just writing to the air.
My thought then was to try
to explain legal news stories as they came along. I was forever reading /.
[Slashdot] comments about legal news and most of the comments would be way off,
and I realized that there is a hunger for someone to explain what it all means,
what the process is, how things play out, to people who aren't in the legal
field. I didn't have a slashdot account, and any time I tried to comment, it
mostly ended up moderated a zero, meaning nobody read it, including probably the
moderators, so I gave up on that. : ) I also wanted to play with graphic/text
interaction, just for some creative fun.
When SCO filed its lawsuit, at
first I didn't take it too seriously. An early post was titled, "SCO Falls
Downstairs, Hitting Its Head on Every Stair". But it made me so angry that they
would even try something like this. I started to write about it more seriously.
And then events kept happening so fast, I stuck to this one story.
I
reasoned like this originally: I am not a lawyer. I am not a programmer. I have
no influence. I have few friends in high places. I am not a political person. I
belong to no organizations. What can * I* do?
By that question, I don't mean
I gave up. I mean I seriously thought about what could I do. I wanted to do
something. I love GNU/Linux software. It taught me how much fun computers can
be. I love seeing into the process. I love the ideals behind free software,
specifically, caring about other people and not just yourself, and cooperation,
and being able to look at the code and even change it and share it freely. I've
written about how it makes me feel in an article called, "It's Free As in
Freedom, Stupid". Yes, I was mad that night. I'd probably call it something else
now. But I had in my mind the "It's the Economy, Stupid" signs, and I was
playing on that. I don't usually call people stupid.
I started out on
computers with Windows, first 95 and then a 98SE box, and at the time, I was the
only person in the small law firm where I then worked who was willing to learn
enough about computers to set the office up and keep the boxes more or less
running. We had no sys admin, no tech dept. Just me. So I had to learn, hands
on, in real time. They were always getting viruses and other malware, and
eventually I learned why and how and what to do (not that they cooperated much),
and one day I realized, "I really love this stuff." When I discovered dual
booting or a Knoppix CD meant you could see what went wrong on the Windows side,
it changed my life. Eventually, I couldn't enjoy Windows any more, partly
because I saw finally there really was no way to secure a Windows 98 box no
matter what you do, and partly because upgrading beyond Windows 2000 meant
licenses to choke on, a lot because of privacy concerns, and also because I
started resenting typing in numbers to prove I had paid for the software and
feeling like I was being treated like I was criminally-inclined. The difference
in how I felt using the two OSs was striking.
One day, I realized that this
difference was "It". Proprietary software and all the laws that back it up are
designed to enforce restrictions on users. And that's just what it felt like.
For personal pleasure, I always turned to GNU/Linux, which felt like breathing
clean air. No restrictions. (I use Mandrake, out of loyalty, because they made
it possible for me to step into the pool, and I especially love Knoppix. My next
project is to do a permanent install of Knoppix, when I get sometime. It's
Exhibit A demonstrating the wonderful things that can happen when you don't tie
code up in proprietary chains.) I do sometimes in a work environment use
Windows, but I don't volunteer to use it in other contexts.
So when the
attack from SCO began, I definitely wanted to help. I honor the work of all the
people who wrote this software. And it just felt natural to want to do something
to help them for giving me so much pleasure, but how? I thought about David and
Goliath. Everyone in the army of Israel was afraid of Goliath, and they refused
to go out to fight, but one young boy said he was willing to go, and that with
God's help, he knew he could win. They gave him a suit of armor and a sword, but
he couldn't even walk in the armor, and he knew nothing about swords. What he
knew how to use was stones, a slingshot. He'd been a shepherd and he'd killed
bears and lions before with the slingshot, so why not Goliath?
All right, I
said to myself, what can I do well? The answer was, I can research and I can
write.Those are the two things attorneys and companies hire me to do for them. I
decided, I will just do what I do best, and I'll throw it out there, like a
message in a bottle. I didn't think too many people would ever read it, except I
thought maybe IBM might find my research and it'd help them. Or someone out
there would read it and realize he or she had meaningful evidence and would
contact IBM or FSF. I know material I have put up can help them, if they didn't
already know about it. Because of my training, I recognize what matters as far
as this case is concerned. Companies like IBM typically hire folks to comb the
Internet for them and find anything that mentions the company, so I assumed
they'd notice me. That's all I was expecting. By saying all, I don't mean to
diminish it as a contribution. I just wasn't expecting thousands of readers
everyday. I was more thinking of the many-eyeballs power in this new
context.
*****************************************
(click the link for
more ...)
The questions any of us can ask ourselves is does this person
who so clearly emerges in the above article, fit the warped image portrayed by
tSCOg's Darl McBride or is McBride characteristically full of deceit, dishonesty
and just plain hot air in what he wants us to believe about PJ (about tSCOg).
Does the above fit the profile of the person MoG would have us believe ?. I
think not (but to be honest, what on earth did MoG ever really state factually
about PJ ?, I'm not sure I know let alone MoG :-).
So someone has to be so
far off the planet over who PJ is, that they have zero credibility and deserve
no respect.
Cheers
Doug Marker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bventer on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
I suggest dropping IDG World Expo a line about all of this, seems like the
LinuxWorld name is theirs and that SYS-CON is using it under some
agreement...
I for one will not be attending LinuxWorld Conference... The
local one here in South Africa have a Local Microsoft Director speaking and only
business people may attend. Not worth my money...
Really sad, there's only
about 2 people I wanted to listen to in the entire programme.
Take a look at
LinuxWorld SA
--- ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: heretic on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Another resignation [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
I shouldn't be surprised, given that Darl and Fuat are both hot shot
businessmen, that their outlooks should agree so well. While reading the Fuat
article I could have sworn it was Darl doing his night job. You know, "my
company is the leading supplier of blah, blah, blah," and "I'm right,
I can't possibly be wrong and soon you will all come to realize that."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|