[Sussex] Scary..

[Steve Dobson]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> 
> I don't particularly agree with what is said in this article, but
> it's an interesting and somewhat controversial view of the F/L/OSS
> community:
> 
> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/commentary/43413.html

Geoff, I'm surprised at you.  I thought that you would have seen
this for the obvious FUD that it is.

Enderle is one of the two journalists Brent Noorda sited as "completely
misleading and just plain wrong" in there reporting of the events
around and leading up to the suicide of his sister Val Noorda Kreidel.
Kreidel was on the board of Canopy (which have [or had - I don't follow
the stock ownership] a 25% stake in SCO) and was involved with the
termination of senior Canopy board members Yarro, Mott and Christensen.

A lot happened: lawsuits, counter lawsuits and a lot of dealing which I
am not privy to.  But Enderle's (and DiDio's) reporting of the events
did have a spin to it that other journalists' reports did not.  A spin
that suggest to me that Enderle has some sort of agenda.

So lets look at the reported "facts":

1). "SCO has experienced massive Denial of Service attacks".  Enderle
suggests (on 30 May) that this was perpetrated by the "Linux faithful".  
The same day that Enderle reports and unproved claim BusinessWeek reports:

     "In January, 2004, a new virus called MyDoom attacked the Web
     site of the SCO Group Inc. (SCOX), a software company that
     claimed the open-source Linux program violated its copyrights.
     Most security experts suspected the virus writer was a Linux fan
     seeking revenge. They were wrong. While the SCO angle created
     confusion, MyDoom acted like a Trojan horse, infecting millions
     of computers and then opening a secret backdoor for its author.
     Eight days after the outbreak, the author used that backdoor to
     download personal data from computer owners. F-Secure's Hypponen
     figured this out in time to warn his clients. It was too late,
     however, for many others. MyDoom caused $4.8 billion in damage,
     the second-most-expensive software attack ever. 'The enemy we
     have been fighting is changing,' says Hypponen." [1]

2). The O'Gara expose[2] of Groklaw's PJ.
    I read that article and it was anything but an expose[2].  Looking
    the word up[3] I find two definitions:

       1. An exposure or a revelation of something discreditable, and
       2. A formal exposition of facts.

    As Enderle points out "O'Gara implied, but did not prove" much, if
    anything, in her story, so it can hardly be viewed as a "exposition
    of facts."  What was "discreditable" was the ridicule for religious
    believes and private details of one Pamela Jones.  Was this Groklaw's
    PJ?  I don't know - no facts (other than the ownership of a computer)
    was presented to link the subject of the article to Groklaw.

    Enderle states that "[t]he publisher [Sys-Con Media] felt the column
    was accurate and stood behind it."  Not the word used here: "felt".
    That doesn't not mean that the article had any basis in facts, just
    that the publisher wanted to publish it.

    Enderle goes on to say "[i]n a coordinated combination of attacks
    which included a broad DOS attack on Sys-Con and an e-mail attack
    on Sys-Con's advertisers, Linux effectively made good on a threat."

    Well I was one of those that went to Sys-Con Media's websites to 
    try and find the article after I had heard about it.  It wasn't
    a coordinated DoS attack, I just wanted to read it to form my
    own opinion, it was the Slashdot Effect.

    Someone suggested, on a public forum, that e-mails be sent to the
    publishers and advertisers to complain.  This must have been picked
    up by the masses (I didn't, because I don't read any of the
    publications).  This was the power of the masses, the people, at
    work.  Public opinion counts!  It got the US out of Vietnam and the
    Tories to kill the Poll Tax.

    As for the "eliminat[ion of] a sister publication as collateral
    damage", that was caused the "voluntary departure of its entire
    editorial staff," or to put it another way: mass resignation of the
    LinuxWorld editorial staff because (in the words of Mr. Turner, one
    of the former editors): "Sys-Con Media has been unable to apply a
    standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably operate
    under."

3). Leadership.
    Enderle presents the Linux leadership in the same way as the
    leadership of a corporate organisation or a trade union.  But that
    is not the model here.  There is no Linux leadership in that
    sense.  Linus Torvalds has no more control over the Linux
    community that I have over the Sussex Linux User Group.

    The Linux community is a mob, a throng, a crowd.  It is without
    leadership.  There are members of the mob that are listened to
    more than others, but they have no power over the mob in the way
    a CEO has power over the employees of the company (s)he runs.

    I disagree with Enderle's claim that "more damage than good" was
    done when over the O'Gara/PJ saga.  It did give more exposure to
    the O'Gara article than in deserved, but it showed her for what
    she is: biased, and with an agenda that she was reporting as 
    fact.

In conclusion I don't see this as "interesting" or "controversial".  It
is FUD, pure and simple.

Steve

[1]
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_22/b3935001_mz001.htm

[2]
I would like to put the ' over the end "e", but 7-bit ASCII text
doesn't allow that.  

[3]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=expos%E9

I grant you that this is a reference to "The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language", but given that Ms O'Gara and Sys-Con Media are
both American then I think we should us American definitions here.

-- 
Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access.  I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?
	-- Matt Welsh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20050602/862eba9b/attachment.pgp