sco.com and caldera.com are down

[Larry Rosenman]

In article <pan.2003.08.24.01.43.56.251633@mtco.com>,
Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:

>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?

It dies in InterNAP from what my traceroute tells me.

I don't know why.
--
Larry Rosenman [url]http://www.lerctr.org/~ler[/url]
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [email]ler@lerctr.org[/email]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:

>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?

Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
I find that the [url]www.sco.com[/url] server and one of the nameservers are
down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
servers that are up).

Both [url]www.sco.com[/url] and [url]www.caldera.com[/url] are on some kind of load
balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.

08/23/03 21:21:25 dig [url]www.sco.com[/url] @ ns.calderasystems.com
Dig [url]www.sco.com@ns.calderasystems.com[/url] (216.250.130.1) ...
Authoritative Answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for [url]www.sco.com[/url] type=255 class=1
[url]www.sco.com[/url] A (Address) 216.250.140.112 (down)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) nsca.sco.com (down)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) c7ns1.center7.com (up)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns.calderasystems.com (up)
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns2.calderasystems.com (up)
ns.calderasystems.com A (Address) 216.250.130.1
ns2.calderasystems.com A (Address) 216.250.130.5
nsca.sco.com A (Address) 132.147.210.253

Since the web server is in the same IP block as the two working
nameservers, I can guess(tm) that only the web server is comatose and
that this is not a connectivity issue.

[url]www.caldera.com[/url] (216.250.130.1) uses the same nameservers and sits in
the same IP class C block. No clue why both should decide to go
comatose at the same time unless it's the load balancer.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice [url]http://www.LearnByDestroying.com[/url]
# [email]jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us[/email]
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager [email]jeffl@cruzio.com[/email] AE6KS

[Larry Rosenman]

In article <8ffgkvg0j5fv19gt0bencgbvcf70vqpvtv@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:
>

>>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?

>
>Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
>I find that the [url]www.sco.com[/url] server and one of the nameservers are
>down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
>(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
>servers that are up).
>
>Both [url]www.sco.com[/url] and [url]www.caldera.com[/url] are on some kind of load
>balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.

I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.

When the attack stops, they'll lift the block
at InterNAP.

LER


--
Larry Rosenman [url]http://www.lerctr.org/~ler[/url]
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [email]ler@lerctr.org[/email]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

[Scott]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:

>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?

;-) It's a real shame isn't it? Sad to see such a useful source of
lies and threats shutdown. It's especially strange after their
hilarious attempts to steal Linux from the open source comunity, lie
about their code being stolen (when all evidence points to them
contributing the code themselves), then in a final act of desperation,
attempt to claim the GPL is invalid, since copyright law prohibits
more than one copy of any software! Oh yes, wasn't their major
announcement at their "big" annual conference the fact they were going
to be including Samba 3.0.x in their OS'? That would be the
Open-source Samba, you know, covered by the GPL. Oh I almost forgot,
they also bundle a great many open source tools with their crummy
systems to hide the fact their own stuff stinks!

Too bad they no longer have any revenue left to put into making their
products usable or competitive, since everything is paid to second
rate lawfirms, trying to defend them as the most reviled company in
the World.

I honestly can't believe anyone is still using this company's
operating systems - let's look at the facts:

1) Their own directors selling shares as quickly as possible.
The only reason SCOX stock is high is due to the amount of
short-stock. Noone in their right mind would buy it.
2) they're infringing upon IBM patents (which luckily cover
ALL their product lines ;-)
3) The entire OS community hate them, and support for SCO
products is likely to be removed from many projects.
4) The directors are likely to face jail terms for their
recent defamation and threats sent out to Linux users. Oh
yes, and for the stock price manipulation.
5) Their own products stink (believe me, moving from
OpenServer to Linux is like travelling 20 years forward
through time!)
6) Why pay per-seat licencing for an outdated OS, when Linux
is free, faster, supports much more hardware and all the
same software (and more)? Oh, and you get the source code!

Personally I believe sco.com should remain down to save these cretins
from further humiliation. Every time Darl Greedy McBride opens his
mouth it's just another avalanche of utter shit pouring out.

To anyone still running SCO software, you have my deepest
sympathies...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:47:07 +0100, Scott
<scott@tiktok.demon.c.u.o.t.s.a> wrote:

> - let's look at the facts:

Let's check the facts.

> 1) Their own directors selling shares as quickly as possible.
> The only reason SCOX stock is high is due to the amount of
> short-stock. Noone in their right mind would buy it.

See:
[url]http://biz.yahoo.com/t/S/SCOX.html[/url]
There are as many options exercised as there are sales. The largest
sale was $261,000. Total insider sales was 1.7% of shares owned by
officers. As most of the sales were proceeded by options priced under
$2/share, I would be more than just tempted to sell when the stock
went to as high as $15/share (and then started to drop). Where is
your "selling shares as quickly as possible"?

> 2) they're infringing upon IBM patents (which luckily cover
> ALL their product lines ;-)

IBM is the worlds largest patent holder. They patent everything in
sight. It's almost impossible to do any kind of software without
locking horns with IBM. For example, XML for ecommerce is allegedly
patented by IBM.

[url]http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2861528,00.html[/url]
Of course, IBM is being magnanimous that week and offered free
royalties to those that will recognize IBM's ownership of ebiz XML.

In the current legal pissing match with SCO, IBM has no reason to be
so nice, and is defending their software patents. Let's just say that
IBM picks its opponents carefully.
Informix:
[url]http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2000/02/07/daily10.html[/url]
I'm not surprised that IBM would claim patent infringement as the
current issue would cast them as the victim should it precipitate a
judicial or legislative review of the validity of software patents.

> 3) The entire OS community hate them, and support for SCO
> products is likely to be removed from many projects.

I doubt it. However, future support in new products is likely to be
lacking.

> 4) The directors are likely to face jail terms for their
> recent defamation and threats sent out to Linux users. Oh
> yes, and for the stock price manipulation.

For what crime? It really depends on how many congress critters one
owns. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers still haven't been indicted by the
Justice Department. My guess is that they never will be. However,
the JD has indicted Martha Stuart (not for insider trading, but only
for covering up her insider trading). High profile proscecution is
based on politix and not the letter of the law.

> 5) Their own products stink (believe me, moving from
> OpenServer to Linux is like travelling 20 years forward
> through time!)

I've been using SCO products since Xenix 2.0. My guess that would be
about 1988. I've been tinkering with Linux since 1.1.13 which is
about 1994. I do not claim to be an expert on either OSR5 or Linux.
I have made money with OSR5 but have not been able to do as well with
Linux. I'll leave it to others to pass judgement on the quality of
the product as I'm not a programmist.

> 6) Why pay per-seat licencing for an outdated OS, when Linux
> is free, faster, supports much more hardware and all the
> same software (and more)? Oh, and you get the source code!

Yep. It's difficult to compete with a product that's free. However,
I don't drive the direction of my customers. I've moved a few servers
to Linux, but the greatest number of seats (i.e. licensed users) seems
to be blundering in the direction of various Windoze products, which
is anything but free.

>Personally I believe sco.com should remain down to save these cretins
>from further humiliation. Every time Darl Greedy McBride opens his
>mouth it's just another avalanche of utter shit pouring out.

So much for free speech. Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
of SCO's point of view. I probably shouldn't have scribbled this
message. However, I take a dim view of warped facts and thought some
comments might be useful.

>To anyone still running SCO software, you have my deepest
>sympathies...

Thank you. I appreciate your concern.


--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
[url]http://www.LearnByDestroying.com[/url] AE6KS
[email]jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us[/email] [email]jeffl@cruzio.com[/email]

[Brian K. White]

"Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> wrote in message
news:bi9h2d$7dj$1@lerami.lerctr.org...

> In article <8ffgkvg0j5fv19gt0bencgbvcf70vqpvtv@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

> >On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:43:58 -0500, Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:
> >

> >>Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
> >>caldera.com. Across the net, many others are experiencing this, but
> >>nobody seems to know why. Does anyone know what's going on?

> >
> >Sorry, I have not inside information. However doing a bit of testing,
> >I find that the [url]www.sco.com[/url] server and one of the nameservers are
> >down. However, some of the boxes are up. stage.caldera.com is up.
> >(I'm too lazy to scan the IP block and see if there are any other
> >servers that are up).
> >
> >Both [url]www.sco.com[/url] and [url]www.caldera.com[/url] are on some kind of load
> >balancing contraption which might be the culprit. Dunno.

> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>
> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block
> at InterNAP.
>
> LER

I would blame this on sco's management.

Obviously you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to go
so incredibly far out of your way to antagonize a planet full of fresh
young linux whiz-kid hackers just itching for something to flex their
muscles on.

Shrewd.

It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't matter
if you are 'right'"

--
Brian K. White -- [email]brian@aljex.com[/email] -- [url]http://www.aljex.com/bkw/[/url]
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani

[Nucleon]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:05:17 +0000, Larry Rosenman wrote:

> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>
> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>
> LER

That's interesting, but can anyone confirm it? With some web searching, I
can only find info about the DDoS on May 2, which SCO was quick to blame
on Linux users. If there were another one, especially one that has
continued for at least two days, wouldn't we have heard about it in the
news?

It's quiet. Too quiet.

--
Nucleon, <tcfelker@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

Life is like an analogy.

[Richard Rasker]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:20:02 -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

[snip]

>> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP
>> sites are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>>
>> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>>
>> LER

>
> I would blame this on sco's management.
>
> Obviously you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to
> go so incredibly far out of your way to antagonize a planet full of
> fresh young linux whiz-kid hackers just itching for something to flex
> their muscles on.
>
> Shrewd.
>
> It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
> Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
> planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
> the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't
> matter if you are 'right'"

Understandable though it may be, there's nothing shrewd about this DOS
attack - it's blemishing the (so far) unspoilt reputation of sensibility
of the Open Source community. In Eric Raymond's words at
[url]http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003082400126NWCYLL:[/url]

"With whatever authority I have, I ask that the DOS attack cease
immediately. Please stand down now. We have better ways to win this fight.
There are at least three reasons running a denial-of-service against SCO
is a bad idea:
First: We're the good guys. But that doesn't matter if we aren't seen to
be the good guys. We cannot fight our war using vandalism and trespass and
the suppression of speech, or SCO will paint us as crackers and maybe win.
Let's keep the moral high ground here. Second: We have other tools that
are more powerful. We have an astonishingly strong set of facts on our
side. SCO has been caught in multiple lies, wholesale IP violations, and
defamatory statements. The way to destroy them is with legal weapons. We
can do that. Third: SCO is its own worst enemy. Every time its
spokespeople open their mouths, they dig their company's grave a little
deeper. Consider their statements at SCOforum and what followed. We're in
an even stronger position than we were three days ago."

In other words: give 'em enough rope to hang themselves. As recent events
suggest, SCO is perfectly capable of orchestrating it's own well-deserved
demise. The more utter bogus they launch into the world, the faster this
realm of greed, slander and paranoia can be burnt to the ground, ploughed
over and forever buried - by legal means that is. This DOS attack is
probably the best thing that could happen to them now, so it's vital that
it stops as soon as possible.

Richard Rasker

--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services

[url]http://www.linetec.nl/[/url]

[Bill Campbell]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003, Brian K. White wrote:
.....

>It must say somewhere in the very early chapters of the "IT Industry
>Organization Operators Handbook" "Don't piss off all the hackers on the
>planet unless your servers are deep in a salt mine and not connected to
>the rest of the world and powered off and disassembeled. It doesn't matter
>if you are 'right'"

This relates to the adage relating to getting into pissing contests with
newspapers. It doesn't pay when your opponent buys ink by the barrel.

The SCO management actions are more akin to going into a battle of wits
unarmed. McBride's latest rants on IBM's financing the opposition sound
like a ``B'' movie villain.

Bill
--
INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc.
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won'ttake an interest in you. -- Pericles

[Brian K. White]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:stohkvojkohm63cs1s8nei75pddh3r7ejn@4ax.com...

>
> [...] Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
> actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
> and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
> company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
> have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
> lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
> of SCO's point of view. [...]
>

That's rather my position.
I shudder at the thought that I may have to start shipping new systems on
linux.

Linux is great. Linux is fun. Linux is not an OS I want to have to support
in the context where I install osr5. I need to be able to install it, and
walk away from it and come back 3 years later when the customers hardware
gives out or they move or something, and I need my co-workers to be able
to do basic support for all the customers stretching over the years the
company has been in business and installing servers with our app on it.
Every time I turn around there is some new hack that gets any exposed box
rootkitted and every few months it changes so much there is no hope of
developing a common set of knowledge that allows a person to support boxes
of various ages stretching over several years. I *like* that not very much
has changed between 5.0.4 and 5.0.7. and what has changed has mostly not
broken backwards compatibility with any install-scripts or basic sysadmin
knowledge. If you knew how to restart the print spooler on Xenix, you
still do on 5.0.7. That is valueable. That is EXTREMELY valuable. The
linux kiddies and other short-sighted people don't understand that, but I
do and my customers are better off for it. Sure, I personally can handle
the changes in linux and actually could support a spectrum of boxes of
different ages, but I'm the only one in my company who could because it is
my pleasure to keep up with stuff like that and supporting the OS's is my
special focus. With sco *everyone* but the receptionist in the company
could do at least basic support. They learned some basic commands verbatim
years ago, and they still apply. They read commands out of a "tricks"
database that were put in years ago, and they still apply. For linux that
database would have to have pages of "or it might be like this, or it
might be like that, or if this file exists then you do it this other
way..." for every damned item. Either that or the whole thing get chucked
and replaced with one answer "get brian"

That would be good for all those linux-knowledgeable people out there who
could get nice jobs as consultants and support staff, but it would NOT be
good for customers who never needed that before. Moving to Linux in
certain environments is a Huge Advance Backwards.

--
Brian K. White -- [email]brian@aljex.com[/email] -- [url]http://www.aljex.com/bkw/[/url]
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani

[Bill Campbell]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003, Brian K. White wrote:

>
>"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
>news:stohkvojkohm63cs1s8nei75pddh3r7ejn@4ax.com.. .

>>
>> [...] Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
>> actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
>> and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
>> company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
>> have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
>> lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
>> of SCO's point of view. [...]
>>

>
>That's rather my position.
>I shudder at the thought that I may have to start shipping new systems on
>linux.
>
>Linux is great. Linux is fun. Linux is not an OS I want to have to support
>in the context where I install osr5. I need to be able to install it, and
>walk away from it and come back 3 years later when the customers hardware
>gives out or they move or something, and I need my co-workers to be able
>to do basic support for all the customers stretching over the years the
>company has been in business and installing servers with our app on it.

Funny, I've been doing that on Linux for years now. Our first mission-
critical Linux install was in September 1997. That machine ran six months
before its first reboot when a janitor knocked the power cord out. We've
had Linux running here, and at ISPs for years without their being cracked
or requiring constant maintenance. Linux uptimes, even at busy ISPs, is
generally a function of power outages or equipment moves, not software
problems.

Of course we don't install any Linux system without first going through it
to tighten security and replace vulnerable programs like sendmail and BIND
with secure alternatives. We do the same thing on OSR5, but it takes a lot
more effort there than on Linux or FreeBSD. I don't trust any vendor's
system out of the box, and have found major security holes in Solaris, OSR
5 (FCS with 777 permissions on ``/'' and all the ``/opt'' directories),
Linux, etc. The SuSE 8.[12] releases come with most services turned off by
default, and others listening only on the 127.0.0.1 localhost interface
(e.g. postfix) which minimizes the dangers even on default installations.

I do agree that Linux developers have a nasty habit of not worrying about
backwards compatibility, and have said so on many occassions. On the other
hand, the time necessary to keep up to speed is far less that that
necessary to keep up with the continual flood of Microsoft holes and
patches.

Bill
--
INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

``Our Foreign dealings are an Open Book, generally a Check Book.''
Will Rogers

[Whoever]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Nucleon wrote:

> Since yesterday or before, I can no longer access either sco.com or
> caldera.com.

Well, [url]www.scosource.com[/url] is up!

>
>

[Larry Rosenman]

In article <pan.2003.08.24.18.31.20.925466@mtco.com>,
Nucleon <tcfelker@mtco.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:05:17 +0000, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>

>> I just talked to the VIAWEST NOCC, and the SCO and CALDERA web/FTP sites
>> are blackholed because some lovely miscreants are DDOS'ing them.
>>
>> When the attack stops, they'll lift the block at InterNAP.
>>
>> LER

>
>That's interesting, but can anyone confirm it? With some web searching, I
>can only find info about the DDoS on May 2, which SCO was quick to blame
>on Linux users. If there were another one, especially one that has
>continued for at least two days, wouldn't we have heard about it in the
>news?
>
>It's quiet. Too quiet.

Read what I said. My post was after I talked to a gentleman (I didn't
write his name down) in the ViaWest NOC.

I don't have enough traffic at the ISP I work for to tell what's going on.

The ViaWest folks have apparently put the lid on, as I tried to verify
my post earlier today for someone, and couldn't get information.

The traceroute I ran acts like an ACL or NULL ROUTE or combination
of the two. (I'm a network engineer by trade, and the person that
does these blocks for us).

SO, the evidence is an ACL/NULL route for the /24 that the SCO/Caldera
web/FTP sites live in. the reason can't be 100% verified because
ViaWest can't say to a NON-Customer what's going on (standard policy).

LER

--
Larry Rosenman [url]http://www.lerctr.org/~ler[/url]
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [email]ler@lerctr.org[/email]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>So much for free speech. Personally, I don't agree with either SCO's
>actions or logic. There are many good people still employed by SCO
>and I suspect many are stuck with my dilemma. How can I defend a
>company without also defending its stupid management actions? I don't
>have an answer. I've kept my big mouth shut in newsgroups and mailing
>lists because any defense of SCO would probably be viewed as a defense
>of SCO's point of view. I probably shouldn't have scribbled this
>message. However, I take a dim view of warped facts and thought some
>comments might be useful.

Your comments were worth writing.

I haven't kept my big mouth shut and never will. In spite of
being very careful to avoid it, most of the Linux dolts have
seen me as defending SCO. That's so stupid that I can't say
any more about it without getting angry and spouting nasties
again.

I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
the worst characteristics of a mob.

This DOS attack just confirms all of that.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[fLameDogg]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote in news:bicu94$b73$3@pcls4.std.com:

> I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
> have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
> filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
> the worst characteristics of a mob.
>
> This DOS attack just confirms all of that.

Which is painted the "larger Linux community" with that single broad brush.
Nice.

--
fD

[Bill Campbell]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
....

>
>All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
>intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>
>Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.

Cute Tony. You're painting with a very broad brush there. The slashdot
crowd is hardly ``the linux community''.

Bill
--
INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

``Never do your enemy a minor injury.''
- Machiavelli

[Ian Wilson]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>
> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.
>

Syllogism:

1) The intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is
incredibly low.

2) Tony is a member of the Linux community.

3) ... ;-)

Frankly, I don't think you can reliably prove anything by reading
Slashdot for a week. Except maybe how to turn your brain to mush.

--
Ian Wilson.

[Wayne M Jackson]

<tony@aplawrence.com> wrote in message news:bictkd$b73$2@pcls4.std.com...

> All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly low.

I somehow differ in that opinion, as /. can hardly be used as a reference
for determining demographics within the Linux community.

Newsgroup postings would be far more accurate in that determination.

Though, I have lost all interest in /. some time back because of the
cretins.

> Eric's words won't fall on deaf ears, but they will fall on dumb ones.

That assumes /dev/ears is even simlinks to /dev/head/leftear and
/dev/head/righteear which from past experience has shown to be linked to
/dev/wall/brick

[Stuart J. Browne]

"Ian Wilson" <scobloke2@infotop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bidovm$3e4$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

> [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> >
> > All you have to do is read slashdot for a week to know that the
> > intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is incredibly

low.

> >

>
>
> Syllogism:
>
> 1) The intelligence and maturity level of the Linux community is
> incredibly low.

.... some of the most intelligent people I know are of the Linux community
.... It's the script-kiddies who have little or no intelligence/maturity,
wanting only to cause pain/disruption to those around them.

> 2) Tony is a member of the Linux community.

As are most of us. :P

> 3) ... ;-)
>
> Frankly, I don't think you can reliably prove anything by reading
> Slashdot for a week. Except maybe how to turn your brain to mush.

Now this is a comment I can agree with!

Reading SlashDot for a day is enough to make you feel 'dumber'. The amount
of ego flowing through that site is astronomical.

bkx

[tony@aplawrence.com]

fLameDogg <flamedogg@operamail.com> wrote:

>tony@aplawrence.com wrote in news:bicu94$b73$3@pcls4.std.com:

>> I have never had much respect for the larger Linux community. They
>> have always seemed to me to be a bunch of yowling dogs, immature,
>> filled with religious fervor for their OS, and exhibiting all
>> the worst characteristics of a mob.
>>
>> This DOS attack just confirms all of that.

>Which is painted the "larger Linux community" with that single broad brush.
>Nice.

My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been spouting
nastygrams about SCO long before there was any indication that the
barbs were deserved.

I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure,
but none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled
for boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the
claims were legit.

OK, as I said, it sure looks like they are not legit. But being
right for the wrong reason doesn't make me respect 'em any more.

Interesting that I haven't seen a peep in Slashdot about this..

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]